-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
base: replace PEP 541 link with user documentation link #17999
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: William Woodruff <william@trailofbits.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm generally in favor of moving away from calling things a "PEP 541 request" and codifying it in a Policy, thus allowing further evolution of the policy and departing from the PEP number.
Not to increase scope too heavily, but that effort should be paired with updates to pypi/support
tracker and other places where the policy is mentioned.
Sounds good! In that case what I'll do is copy the policy bits of PEP 541 into a new PR against
I can do a survey of these points. |
(Just responding to say I haven't forgotten about this. I'll probably do it at PyCon!) |
Revisiting this -- I think this is the stack of requirements for unblocking this:
@miketheman do you think I'm missing anything above? 🙂 |
I think that's correct - although we're probably missing a bunch of references somewhere. Maybe an update to the PEP page that states "this page is a historical reference..." kind of thing? |
xref: I've done the first part of above with psf/policies#41 |
To keep things balanced between the different columns, I've removed the link to PEP 541 and replaced it with a link to the user docs.
This has the downside of removing a link to the index's name retention polcies. However, I think there are two possible resolutions here:
Curious what others think about either of the above 🙂
Closes #17959.