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
Migrating interoperability specifications to PyPUG #11
Comments
(I don't currently have access to assign this to myself, so if I could be added, that would be great) |
Just to be clear, you want to move the PEPs out of the PEP repository and into uh, this one I guess? Or what specifically is the plan? |
Not quite. What I'd like to do is shift to a model closer to the way
That way, if you just want the current spec, that's always readily |
Okay, great. I've added the PEP Authors team as committers to this repository then. |
Initial PR: #12 (I'm also working on an update to the roadmap to point to this issue from the relevant sections) |
distutils-sig thread: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2016-January/028060.html After reflecting on the PR and likely future workflows, I've switched to favouring a split approach where we put the process definition here (since it's really only relevant to PyPA & distutils-sig members), but have the specifications themselves on packaging.python.org. The main purposes of that is to keep the packaging specifications on the same standing as the Language Reference and Library Reference in terms of "brand recognition" for their top level domain. |
I implemented the split where the process guide is here, but the specifications themselves stay on *.python.org: Process PR: #14 |
Next steps:
|
Added an extra task bullet to account for the migration of https://github.com/python/peps to GitHub |
#19 implements the first 2 bullet points in the task list |
@di split the specifications page up into multiple pages, and migrated the full core metadata description over to packaging.python.org in pypa/packaging.python.org#386 |
I have some time at the moment to work on upstream process improvement, and one of the things I'd like to tidy up is the change management process for interoperability specifications. Some relevant previous discussions:
Since that last discussion, @dstufft, @nlhkabu and @ddbeck have done a lot more design work on Warehouse and the user guide, so I've now come around to the view that the PyPA internal docs are likely to be a better home.
Rather than using PEP 440 or PEP 508 as guinea pigs, I'm thinking a better starting point might be PEP 376 (the database of installed Python distributions), since we can tweak the description on pypa.io to specifically cover the interoperability spec parts that pip implements, and omit the standard library API parts.
I'll put together a pull request along those lines, adding a new "PyPA Specifications" section, with process details (based on the first email linked above), and a section on the RECORD file and the directory naming scheme.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: