[Python-Dev] Re: Resurrecting PEP-472
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 10:20:08 +0200 Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi, > > IMO a new PEP would avoid confusion: > > * The new PEP should list differences with the previously rejected PEP > * The old PEP remains available unchanged to help to understand why it > has been rejected > > It's common to have multiple PEP for the same feature. Once a PEP is > accepted, other PEP are rejected or marked as "superseded" (by the > accepted PEP). Agreed with Victor. Please create a new PEP. Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/SK5Q76F3GZAF6BAEMCSYDVX35YINZSAW/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Resurrecting PEP-472
Okay, thanks everyone who answered. In hindsight you are all correct, writing a new PEP is the best solution and I was being over-optimistic (and a little lazy) to think otherwise. I think that, technically, I still have core dev permissions, even though I haven't used them for quite some time. If nobody objects, I would like to use them to sponsor the new PEP. Does it make a difference if I am a co-author of the new PEP, or a significant contributor? Dipping-my-toes-back-into-CPython-dev-ly y'rs, -- Steve ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/OYFGGJDQAPU4VGW756JT22GED2GVUYSU/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
