-
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? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: William Woodruff <[email protected]>
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 Maybe an update to the PEP page that states "this page is a historical reference..."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.