I have updated PEP 411, following the input from this discussion. The
updated PEP is at: http://hg.python.org/peps/file/default/pep-0411.txt
Changes:
- Specified that a package may remain provisional for longer than a single
minor release
- Shortened the suggested documentation notice, linking to
Antoine Pitrou writes:
> I think the word "provisional" doesn't mean anything to many
> (non-native English speaking) people. I would like to suggest something
> clearer, e.g. "experimental" or "unstable" - which have the benefit of
> *already* having a meaning in other software-related contex
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Isaac Morland wrote:
> Could the documentation generator simply insert the boilerplate if and only
> if the package has the __provisional__ attribute? I'm not an expert in
> Python documentation but isn't it generated from properly-formatted comments
> within the
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:06:15 +0200
> Eli Bendersky wrote:
>>
>> Following the intensive and fruitful discussion of the (now rejected)
>> PEP 408
>> (http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115850.html),
>> we've drafted PE
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Eric Snow
> wrote:
>> Is there more to it than having a simple __provisional__ attribute on
>> the module and/or a list at sys.provisional_modules?
>
> Yes. As soon as we touch functional code, it because so
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Arguably, the canonical test for whether a package is provisional or not
should be the existence of __provisional__:
for package in packages:
if hasattr(package, '__provisional__')
assert package documentation includes boilerplate
else:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 04:32:56PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> This would then be seen by pydoc and help(), as well as being amenable
> to programmatic inspection.
>
Would using
warnings.warn('This is a provisional API and may change radically from'
' release to release', Provi
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:06:15 +0200
Eli Bendersky wrote:
>
> Following the intensive and fruitful discussion of the (now rejected)
> PEP 408
> (http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115850.html),
> we've drafted PEP 411 to summarize the conclusions with regards to the
> process
Eric Snow wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 22:13, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
Eli Bendersky wrote (in
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116393.html ):
A package will be marked provisional by including the
following paragra
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Eric Snow wrote:
> Is there more to it than having a simple __provisional__ attribute on
> the module and/or a list at sys.provisional_modules?
Yes. As soon as we touch functional code, it because something to be
tested and the process overhead on our end is notic
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 22:13, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
>>
>> Eli Bendersky wrote (in
>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116393.html ):
>>
>>> A package will be marked provisional by including the
>>> following paragrap
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 23:56, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 2/10/2012 9:06 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>
>> Whenever the Python core development team decides that a new package
>> should be
>> included into the standard library, but isn't entirely sure about whether
>> the
>> package's API is optimal, the
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 22:13, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
>
> Eli Bendersky wrote (in
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116393.html ):
>
>> A package will be marked provisional by including the
>> following paragraph as a note at the top of its
>> documentation page:
>
> I real
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 20:33, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Other than the misspelling of "maintenante" instead of "maintenance", LGTM.
>
Fixed that and another typo (thanks 'aspell' :-] )
Eli
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.pyth
Jim J. Jewett wrote:
Eli Bendersky wrote (in
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116393.html ):
A package will be marked provisional by including the
following paragraph as a note at the top of its
documentation page:
I really would like some marker available from withi
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
>
> Eli Bendersky wrote (in
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116393.html ):
>
>> A package will be marked provisional by including the
>> following paragraph as a note at the top of its
>> documentation page:
>
> I re
On 2/10/2012 9:06 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
Whenever the Python core development team decides that a new package should be
included into the standard library, but isn't entirely sure about whether the
package's API is optimal, the package can be included and marked as
"provisional".
In the next
Eli Bendersky wrote (in
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116393.html ):
> A package will be marked provisional by including the
> following paragraph as a note at the top of its
> documentation page:
I really would like some marker available from within Python
itself.
Other than the misspelling of "maintenante" instead of "maintenance", LGTM.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:06, Eli Bendersky wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Following the intensive and fruitful discussion of the (now rejected)
> PEP 408 (
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115850.html),
Hi all,
Following the intensive and fruitful discussion of the (now rejected)
PEP 408 (http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115850.html),
we've drafted PEP 411 to summarize the conclusions with regards to the
process of marking packages provisional. Note that this is an
informa
20 matches
Mail list logo
