Re: [Web-SIG] Declaring PEP 3333 accepted (was: PEP 444 != WSGI 2.0)

2011-01-12 Thread Alice Bevan–McGregor
On 2011-01-10 13:12:57 -0800, Guido van Rossum said: Ok, now that we've had a week of back and forth about this, let me repeat my threat. Unless more concerns are brought up in the next 24 hours, can PEP be accepted? It seems a lot of people are waiting for a decision that enables

Re: [Web-SIG] Declaring PEP 3333 accepted (was: PEP 444 != WSGI 2.0)

2011-01-12 Thread Guido van Rossum
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Alice Bevan–McGregor al...@gothcandy.com wrote: On 2011-01-10 13:12:57 -0800, Guido van Rossum said: Ok, now that we've had a week of back and forth about this, let me repeat my threat. Unless more concerns are brought up in the next 24 hours, can PEP be

Re: [Web-SIG] Declaring PEP 3333 accepted (was: PEP 444 != WSGI 2.0)

2011-01-12 Thread P.J. Eby
At 02:52 PM 1/12/2011 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Alice Bevan­McGregor al...@gothcandy.com wrote: On 2011-01-10 13:12:57 -0800, Guido van Rossum said: Ok, now that we've had a week of back and forth about this, let me repeat my threat. Unless more concerns

Re: [Web-SIG] Declaring PEP 3333 accepted (was: PEP 444 != WSGI 2.0)

2011-01-12 Thread Graham Dumpleton
On 13 January 2011 12:02, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: At 02:52 PM 1/12/2011 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Alice Bevan­McGregor al...@gothcandy.com wrote: On 2011-01-10 13:12:57 -0800, Guido van Rossum said: Ok, now that we've had a week of