[python-committers] Survey about DVCSs compared to svn

[Brett Cannon]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 14:13, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:

> > It may be that people are concerned that if the PEP will be presented
> > as a decision being made, the opportunity for meaninful input will
> > have passed.
>
> That is not the idea of the PEP process. Instead, it works like this:
> an enhancement is proposed, and people can discuss it and give feedback.
> They can indicate support, or suggest improvements, or indicate
> rejection. After some revisions, the PEP is proposed to the BDFL, who
> will pronounce. Traditionally, the BDFL has also considered the
> community view (unless he has a strong opinion on his own).
>
> > Could you clarify for me: how binding will your PEP be?  ie, will it
> > be closer to a recommendation, or will the final PEP be a final
> > decision about what will (or will not) happen?
>
> If the PEP process is followed (which I recommend it is), then it will
> be a decision. Notice, however, that the PEP can be rejected (and
> several PEPs *have* been rejected in the past, including some I wrote).
>
> I'm strongly in favor of this process, even though I'm also opposed
> to the likely proposition of the PEP (namely, to use something else
> than subversion - else there would not need to be a PEP). It is
> *very important* that the PEP provides a complete specification right
> from the start, or else discussion will revolve around the open issues,
> with no conclusion. So I'd rather have the PEP suggest that we switch
> to bzr (say), so that I can vote that down, instead of giving options
> in its final form.


It ain't going to be wishy-washy; there will be a very obvious suggestion of
what to switch to if a switch were to take place.

-Brett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20090227/70fdcbb9/attachment.htm>