[Python-checkins] r72563 - peps/trunk/pep-0374.txt

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 5:58 PM, David Goodger <goodger at python.org> wrote:
> In this matter, I disagree with Martin. The original objective of PEP
> 374 *has* been achieved: a DVCS was chosen. PEP 374 should continue to
> document that process. The transition details should be *added* to the
> record, not replace it.

Well, I (guided by Martin's interpretation, I guess) interpreted the
objective of this PEP according to its former title: "Migration from
svn to a distributed VCS". That doesn't imply just chosing the DVCS,
it also implies the migration details. In that interpretation, it
seems okay to clarify the title according to the new information,
namely that we now know to which DVCS Python is migrating.

> BTW, I can't find anything prior to Martin's reply to this thread, but
> your message implies there was something before revision 72563. Do you
> have a reference?

This was in the conversation on getting the migration started, see
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-April/088222.html.

> Have you seen the other replies to this thread? Others agree that this
> revision should be reverted.

I have seen only messages from people who have replied to me
explicitly, so I saw the message from Alexandre Vassalotti and
Martin's reply to that, then Alexandre's reply again. I didn't see
until just now the messages from Georg Brandl and Benjamin Peterson.

> Question for you: what harm would there be in reverting revision 72563
> and creating a new PEP?

There is no harm in that.

> From PEP 1, PEP Purpose and Guidelines
> (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/ -- which I recommend you
> read):
>
> """
> We intend PEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new
> features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for
> documenting the design decisions that have gone into Python.
> """
>
> This is clearly a case of documenting a decision.
>
> For future reference, questions about PEP process is what the PEP
> editors are for.

To be clear, I did read PEP 1. And I was going to ask Barry about
committing my PEP change, but I asked Martin for review first, and he
mentioned I could commit it myself.

I'll revert, and would like toe hereby claim a new PEP number -- can I
just start a new one by editing the index and then committing a new
file?

Cheers,

Dirkjan