PEP 639: Update PEP delegate, post history and CODEOWNERS (GH-2228)

This commit is contained in:
CAM Gerlach 2022-01-20 02:04:25 -06:00 committed by GitHub
parent d9e63ccf42
commit 6c7fa9746f
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
2 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions

2
.github/CODEOWNERS vendored
View File

@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ pep-0635.rst @brandtbucher @gvanrossum
pep-0636.rst @brandtbucher @gvanrossum
pep-0637.rst @stevendaprano
pep-0638.rst @markshannon
pep-0639.rst @pfmoore
pep-0639.rst @pfmoore @CAM-Gerlach
pep-0640.rst @Yhg1s
pep-0641.rst @zooba @warsaw @brettcannon
pep-0642.rst @ncoghlan

View File

@ -5,13 +5,13 @@ Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne at nexb.com>,
C.A.M. Gerlach <CAM.Gerlach at Gerlach.CAM>
Sponsor: Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com>
PEP-Delegate: Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com>
PEP-Delegate: Brett Cannon <brett at python.org>
Discussions-To: https://discuss.python.org/t/12622
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 15-Aug-2019
Post-History:
Post-History: 15-Aug-2019, 17-Dec-2021
Resolution:
@ -1396,7 +1396,7 @@ but re-using the ``license`` key for the license expression, either by
defining it as the (previously reserved) string value for the ``license``
key, retaining the ``expression`` subkey in the ``license`` table, or
allowing both. Indeed, this would seem to have been envisioned by PEP 621
itself with this PEP in mind, in particular the first approach::
itself with this PEP in mind, in particular the first approach:
A practical string value for the license key has been purposefully left
out to allow for a future PEP to specify support for SPDX expressions