At 07:15 PM 9/25/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Don't see this as a new spec. See it as a procedural issue.
As a procedural issue, PEP 333 is an Informational PEP, in Draft
status, which I'd like to make Final after these amendments. See
http://www.wsgi.org/wsgi/Amendments_1.0, which
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
I hadn't realized that PEP 333 was never actually in the 'Final' status
(de facto, it has been so for years, of course). Given that fact, and
PJEs assurances, I think amending the PEP and then immediately declaring
it
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Sep 26, 2010, at 1:33 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 08:20 AM 9/26/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm happy approving Final status for the
*original* PEP 333 and I'm happy to approve a new PEP which includes
PJE's
At 01:44 PM 9/26/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Sep 26, 2010, at 1:33 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 08:20 AM 9/26/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm happy approving Final status for the
*original* PEP 333 and I'm
Since you have commit privileges, just do it. The PEP editor position
mostly exists to assure non-committers are not prevented from
authoring PEPs.
Please do add a prominent note at the top of PEP 333 pointing to PEP
for further information on Python 3 compliance or some such
words. Add a
Done. The other amendments were never actually made, so I just
reverted the Python 3 bit after moving it to the new PEP. I'll make
the changes to instead as soon as I have another time slot free.
At 01:56 PM 9/26/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Since you have commit privileges,
At 02:59 PM 9/26/2010 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
You could mark added material is a way that does not conflict with
rst or html. Or use .rst to make new text stand out in the .html web
verion (bold, underlined, red, or whatever). People familiar with
333 can focus on the marked sections. New
At 09:22 PM 9/25/2010 -0400, Jesse Noller wrote:
It seems like it will end up
different enough to be a different specification, closely related to
the original, but different enough to trip up all the people
maintaining current WSGI servers and apps.
The only actual *change* to the spec is
At 02:07 PM 9/25/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
This is a very laudable initiative and I approve of the changes -- but
I really think it ought to be a separate PEP rather than pretending it
is just a set of textual corrections on the existing PEP 333.
With the exception of the bytes
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
At 02:07 PM 9/25/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
This is a very laudable initiative and I approve of the changes -- but
I really think it ought to be a separate PEP rather than pretending it
is just a set of textual
10 matches
Mail list logo
