On 15 September 2017 at 04:57, Alexandre GALODE <alexandre.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > What are you thinking about this PEP idea?
We don't really see it as the role of the language development team to formally provide direct advice on what tools people should be using to improve their development workflows (similar to the way that it isn't the C/C++ standards committees recommending tools like Coverity, or Oracle and the OpenJDK teams advising on the use of SonarQube). That said, there *are* collaborative groups working on these kinds of activities: - for linters & style checkers, there's the "PyCQA": http://meta.pycqa.org/en/latest/introduction.html - for testing, there's the "Python Testing Tools Taxonomy" (https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonTestingToolsTaxonomy) and the testing-in-python mailing list (http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python) - for gradual typing, we do get involved for the language level changes, but even there, the day-to-day focus of activity is more the typing repo at https://github.com/python/typing/ rather than CPython itself So while there's definitely scope for making these aspects of the Python ecosystem more approachable (similar to what we're aiming to do with packaging.python.org for the software distribution space), a PEP isn't the right vehicle for it. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
