Some updates based on feedback from PEP authors. Also, this applies
SF patch #410223 by Andrew Kuchling, describing the new Replaces: and Replaced-by: headers.
This commit is contained in:
parent
c3157b3336
commit
7ce8ba5d99
157
pep-0001.txt
157
pep-0001.txt
|
@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Author: barry@digicool.com (Barry A. Warsaw),
|
||||||
Status: Draft
|
Status: Draft
|
||||||
Type: Informational
|
Type: Informational
|
||||||
Created: 13-Jun-2000
|
Created: 13-Jun-2000
|
||||||
Post-History:
|
Post-History: 21-Mar-2001
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
What is a PEP?
|
What is a PEP?
|
||||||
|
@ -37,52 +37,57 @@ Kinds of PEPs
|
||||||
feature.
|
feature.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
PEP Workflow
|
PEP Work Flow
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The PEP editor, Barry Warsaw <barry@digicool.com>, assigns numbers
|
The PEP editor, Barry Warsaw <barry@digicool.com>, assigns numbers
|
||||||
for each PEP and changes its status.
|
for each PEP and changes its status.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
When a new feature is introduced on python-dev, a brief high-level
|
The PEP process begins with a new idea for Python. Each PEP must
|
||||||
discussion should be conducted, not on the merits of the proposal,
|
have a champion -- someone who writes the PEP using the style and
|
||||||
but on whether the idea is significant enough to warrant a PEP.
|
format described below, shepherds the discussions in the
|
||||||
Should consensus on PEP-ability be reached, a champion must be
|
appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus
|
||||||
identified. The champion offers to take the discussion off-line
|
around the idea. The PEP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first
|
||||||
and specifies a location (e.g. egroups, python.org, Roundup).
|
attempt to ascertain whether the idea is PEP-able. Small
|
||||||
|
enhancements or patches often don't need a PEP and can be injected
|
||||||
|
into the Python development work flow with a patch submission to
|
||||||
|
the SourceForge patch manager[2] or feature request tracker[3].
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The champion then emails the PEP editor with a proposed title and
|
The PEP champion then emails the PEP editor with a proposed title
|
||||||
a rough, but fleshed out, draft of the PEP.
|
and a rough, but fleshed out, draft of the PEP. This draft must
|
||||||
|
be written in PEP style as described below.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
If the PEP editor approves, he will assign the PEP a number, label
|
If the PEP editor approves, he will assign the PEP a number, label
|
||||||
it as standards track or informational, give it status 'draft',
|
it as standards track or informational, give it status 'draft',
|
||||||
and create and check-in the initial draft of the PEP. The PEP
|
and create and check-in the initial draft of the PEP. The PEP
|
||||||
editor will not unreasonably deny a PEP. Reasons for denying PEP
|
editor will not unreasonably deny a PEP. Reasons for denying PEP
|
||||||
status include duplication of effort, being technically unsound,
|
status include duplication of effort, being technically unsound,
|
||||||
or not in keeping with the Python philosophy; the BDFL (Benevolent
|
or not in keeping with the Python philosophy. The BDFL
|
||||||
Dictator for Life, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org>) is the
|
(Benevolent Dictator for Life, Guido van Rossum
|
||||||
final arbitrator of the latter.
|
<guido@python.org>) can be consulted during the approval phase,
|
||||||
|
and is the final arbitrator of the draft's PEP-ability.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
In general, an initial draft of the PEP should be prepared before
|
The author of the PEP is then responsible for posting the PEP to
|
||||||
discussion occurs on the python-dev and pyton-list mailing lists.
|
the community forums, and marshaling community support for it. As
|
||||||
The author should incorporate comments and feedback into this
|
updates are necessary, the PEP author can check in new versions if
|
||||||
initial draft when possible.
|
they have CVS commit permissions, or can email new PEP versions to
|
||||||
|
the PEP editor for committing.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The authors of the PEP are then responsible for writing the PEP
|
Standards track PEPs consists of two parts, a design document and
|
||||||
and marshaling community support for it. The structure of a PEP
|
a reference implementation. The PEP should be reviewed and
|
||||||
is described in detail below. The PEP consists of two parts, a
|
accepted before a reference implementation is begun, unless a
|
||||||
design document and a reference implementation. The PEP should be
|
reference implementation will aid people in studying the PEP.
|
||||||
reviewed and accepted before a reference implementation is begun,
|
Standards Track PEPs must include an implementation - in the form
|
||||||
unless a reference implementation will aid people in studying the
|
of code, patch, or URL to same - before it can be considered
|
||||||
PEP. A Standards Track PEP must include an implementation - in
|
Final.
|
||||||
the form of code, patch, or URL to same - before it can be
|
|
||||||
considered Final.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
PEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a
|
PEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a
|
||||||
PEP before submitting it for review. A PEP that has not been
|
PEP before submitting it for review. A PEP that has not been
|
||||||
discussed on python-list and python-dev will not be accepted for
|
discussed on python-list@python.org and/or python-dev@python.org
|
||||||
review. However, wherever possible, long open-ended discussions
|
will not be accepted. However, wherever possible, long open-ended
|
||||||
on public mailing lists should be avoided. A better strategy is
|
discussions on public mailing lists should be avoided. A better
|
||||||
to encourage public feedback directly to the PEP author, who
|
strategy is to encourage public feedback directly to the PEP
|
||||||
collects and integrates the comments back into the PEP.
|
author, who collects and integrates the comments back into the
|
||||||
|
PEP.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Once the authors have completed a PEP, they must inform the PEP
|
Once the authors have completed a PEP, they must inform the PEP
|
||||||
editor that it is ready for review. PEPs are reviewed by the BDFL
|
editor that it is ready for review. PEPs are reviewed by the BDFL
|
||||||
|
@ -102,9 +107,13 @@ PEP Workflow
|
||||||
it was not a good idea. It is still important to have a record of
|
it was not a good idea. It is still important to have a record of
|
||||||
this fact.
|
this fact.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
PEPs can also be replaced by a different PEP, rendering the
|
||||||
|
original obsolete. This is intended for Informational PEPs, where
|
||||||
|
version 2 of an API can replace version 1.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
PEP work flow is as follows:
|
PEP work flow is as follows:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Draft -> Accepted -> Final
|
Draft -> Accepted -> Final -> Replaced
|
||||||
^
|
^
|
||||||
+----> Rejected
|
+----> Rejected
|
||||||
v
|
v
|
||||||
|
@ -118,24 +127,24 @@ What belongs in a successful PEP?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Each PEP should have the following parts:
|
Each PEP should have the following parts:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
1. Title -- a short, descriptive title
|
1. Preamble -- RFC822 style headers containing meta-data about the
|
||||||
|
PEP, including the PEP number, a short descriptive title, the
|
||||||
|
names contact info for each author, etc.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
2. Author(s) -- names and contact info for each author
|
2. Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical
|
||||||
|
issue being addressed.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
3. Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical issue
|
3. Copyright/public domain -- Each PEP must either be explicitly
|
||||||
being addressed
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
4. Copyright/public domain -- Each PEP must either be explicitly
|
|
||||||
labelled in the public domain or the Open Publication
|
labelled in the public domain or the Open Publication
|
||||||
License[2].
|
License[4].
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
5. Specification -- The technical specification should describe
|
4. Specification -- The technical specification should describe
|
||||||
the syntax and semantics of any new language feature. The
|
the syntax and semantics of any new language feature. The
|
||||||
specification should be detailed enough to allow competing,
|
specification should be detailed enough to allow competing,
|
||||||
interoperable implementations for any of the current Python
|
interoperable implementations for any of the current Python
|
||||||
platforms (CPython, JPython, Python .NET).
|
platforms (CPython, JPython, Python .NET).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
6. Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by
|
5. Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by
|
||||||
describing what motivated the design and why particular design
|
describing what motivated the design and why particular design
|
||||||
decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that
|
decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that
|
||||||
were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is
|
were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is
|
||||||
|
@ -145,8 +154,8 @@ What belongs in a successful PEP?
|
||||||
community and discuss important objections or concerns raised
|
community and discuss important objections or concerns raised
|
||||||
during discussion.
|
during discussion.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
7. Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must
|
6. Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must
|
||||||
be completed before any PEP is given status 'final,' but it
|
be completed before any PEP is given status 'Final,' but it
|
||||||
need not be completed before the PEP is accepted. It is better
|
need not be completed before the PEP is accepted. It is better
|
||||||
to finish the specification and rationale first and reach
|
to finish the specification and rationale first and reach
|
||||||
consensus on it before writing code.
|
consensus on it before writing code.
|
||||||
|
@ -160,51 +169,61 @@ PEP Style
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
PEPs are written in plain ASCII text, and should adhere to a
|
PEPs are written in plain ASCII text, and should adhere to a
|
||||||
rigid style. There is a Python script that parses this style and
|
rigid style. There is a Python script that parses this style and
|
||||||
converts the plain text PEP to HTML for viewing on the web[3].
|
converts the plain text PEP to HTML for viewing on the web[5].
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Each PEP begins with an RFC822 style header section. Required
|
Each PEP must begin with an RFC822 style header preamble. The
|
||||||
headers are as follows, and must appear in this order:
|
headers must appear in the following order. Headers marked with
|
||||||
|
`*' are optional and are described below. All other headers are
|
||||||
|
required.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
PEP: <pep number>
|
PEP: <pep number>
|
||||||
Title: <pep title>
|
Title: <pep title>
|
||||||
Version: <cvs version string>
|
Version: <cvs version string>
|
||||||
Author: <list of authors' email and real name>
|
Author: <list of authors' email and real name>
|
||||||
|
* Discussions-To: <email address>
|
||||||
Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Final>
|
Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Final>
|
||||||
Type: <Informational | Standards Track>
|
Type: <Informational | Standards Track>
|
||||||
Created: <date created on, in dd-mmm-yyyy format>
|
Created: <date created on, in dd-mmm-yyyy format>
|
||||||
|
* Python-Version: <version number>
|
||||||
Post-History: <dates of postings to python-list and python-dev>
|
Post-History: <dates of postings to python-list and python-dev>
|
||||||
|
* Replaces: <pep number>
|
||||||
|
* Replaced-By: <pep number>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Standards track PEPs should additionally have a Python-Version:
|
Standards track PEPs must have a Python-Version: header which
|
||||||
header which indicates the version of Python that the feature will
|
indicates the version of Python that the feature will be released
|
||||||
be released with.
|
with. Informational PEPs do not need a Python-Version: header.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
While a PEP is in private discussions (usually during the initial
|
While a PEP is in private discussions (usually during the initial
|
||||||
Draft phase), a Discussions-To: header will indicate the mailing
|
Draft phase), a Discussions-To: header will indicate the mailing
|
||||||
list or URL where the PEP is being discussed.
|
list or URL where the PEP is being discussed. No Discussions-To:
|
||||||
|
header is necessary if the PEP is being discussed privately with
|
||||||
|
the author, or on the python-list or python-dev email mailing
|
||||||
|
lists.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
PEP headings should begin in column zero and should be
|
PEPs may also have a Replaced-By: header indicating that a PEP has
|
||||||
capitalized. The body of each section should be indented 4
|
been rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the
|
||||||
|
number of the PEP that replaces the current document. The newer
|
||||||
|
PEP must have a Replaces: header containing the number of the PEP
|
||||||
|
that it rendered obsolete.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
PEP headings must begin in column zero and the initial letter of
|
||||||
|
each word must be capitalized as in book titles. Acronyms should
|
||||||
|
be in all capitals. The body of each section must be indented 4
|
||||||
spaces. Code samples inside body sections should be indented a
|
spaces. Code samples inside body sections should be indented a
|
||||||
further 4 spaces, and other indentation can be used as required to
|
further 4 spaces, and other indentation can be used as required to
|
||||||
make the text readable. You should use two blank lines between
|
make the text readable. You must use two blank lines between the
|
||||||
the last line of a section's body and the next section heading.
|
last line of a section's body and the next section heading.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
No tabs should appear in the document at all. A PEP should
|
Tab characters must never appear in the document at all. A PEP
|
||||||
include the Emacs stanza included by example in this PEP to aid
|
should include the Emacs stanza included by example in this PEP.
|
||||||
Emacs editors.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
A PEP must contain a Copyright heading, and it is strongly
|
A PEP must contain a Copyright section, and it is strongly
|
||||||
recommended to put the PEP in the public domain.
|
recommended to put the PEP in the public domain.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
You should footnote any URLs in the body of the PEP, and a PEP
|
You should footnote any URLs in the body of the PEP, and a PEP
|
||||||
should include a References section with those URLs expanded.
|
should include a References section with those URLs expanded.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Copyright
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This document has been placed in the public domain.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
References and Footnotes
|
References and Footnotes
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[1] This historical record is available by the normal CVS commands
|
[1] This historical record is available by the normal CVS commands
|
||||||
|
@ -214,9 +233,13 @@ References and Footnotes
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/python/nondist/peps/?cvsroot=python
|
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/python/nondist/peps/?cvsroot=python
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[2] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
|
[2] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[3] The script referred to here is pep2html.py, which lives in
|
[3] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=355470&group_id=5470&func=browse
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[4] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[5] The script referred to here is pep2html.py, which lives in
|
||||||
the same directory in the CVS tree as the PEPs themselves. Try
|
the same directory in the CVS tree as the PEPs themselves. Try
|
||||||
"pep2html.py --help" for details.
|
"pep2html.py --help" for details.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@ -224,6 +247,10 @@ References and Footnotes
|
||||||
http://python.sourceforge.net/peps/
|
http://python.sourceforge.net/peps/
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Copyright
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This document has been placed in the public domain.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Local Variables:
|
Local Variables:
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue