On 7/29/2021 6:17 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jul 29, 2021, at 05:55, Steve Dower <steve.do...@python.org> wrote:
Maybe we should have a "Type" other than Standards Track for PEPs that are
documenting implementation designs, rather than requirements for standardisation?
Wouldn’t Informational fill that need?
Perhaps, though my understanding was that Informational PEPs aren't tied
to specific Python versions (in this case, a CPython release) and are
meant to remain "Active" until completely redundant.
Maybe if the PEPs got a preamble covering "this describes part of the
implementation of CPython as first released in x.y... may have changed
since that time... refer to source code" it would be clear enough. We
might want to move them to "Final" after implementation though, unlike
other Informational PEPs.
Seems like there's _just enough_ nuance there to justify a different
type. But then, presumably there's also infrastructure around PEP types
as well that I'm unaware of (and not volunteering to update!), so those
with the investment in it can have it however they'd like :)
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/F2WEKHD77EAWFTCW7PWDEESSZMBL64BI/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
