Message176626
| Author |
chris.jerdonek |
| Recipients |
barry, brett.cannon, chris.jerdonek, docs@python, eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, goodger, loewis, ncoghlan |
| Date |
2012年11月29日.04:22:21 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1354162941.61.0.486926707138.issue16574@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> I think the gist here is that "in general" is good enough, given that there is unwritten consensus about what edits are possible in the developers’ heads.
As I said, I'm okay with keeping the PEP as is (with "in general," etc) provided a clarification is documented elsewhere like in the devguide. What I want to avoid are, as you say, there being "unwritten" rules about changing PEPs in the Final state. (It was the general remarks about unwritten rules in Nick's e-mail that I felt were applicable.)
The written rules need not be overly-detailed or inflexible so long as they give newcomers without that common understanding a leg up on what to do. It could be something as simple as "non-substantive changes to PEPs in the Final state should be treated like any other changes to the documentation" (or whatever the general process/criteria should be for such changes). |
|