On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 13:46 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Both the RM and BDFL agree that Python 3.2b1 should be held up until
> we settle this wsgi matter. That makes it a question of how to settle
> it.
>
> Thinking out loud here to keep this discussion focused, I say we give
> a deadline for PEP
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 14:41, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 22:46, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Both the RM and BDFL agree that Python 3.2b1 should be held up until
>> we settle this wsgi matter. That makes it a question of how to settle
>> it.
>
> I think that's a very good goal. G
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 22:46, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Both the RM and BDFL agree that Python 3.2b1 should be held up until
> we settle this wsgi matter. That makes it a question of how to settle
> it.
I think that's a very good goal. Given all the times it's come up on
the Web-SIG list (I even tri
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Both the RM and BDFL agree that Python 3.2b1 should be held up until
> we settle this wsgi matter. That makes it a question of how to settle
> it.
>
> Thinking out loud here to keep this discussion focused, I say we give
> a deadline for PEPs
Both the RM and BDFL agree that Python 3.2b1 should be held up until
we settle this wsgi matter. That makes it a question of how to settle
it.
Thinking out loud here to keep this discussion focused, I say we give
a deadline for PEPs to be submitted by October 15th. We then choose
two PEP dictators
