Repository navigation
Conversation
|
See what you think about these changes. I am trying to steer people to GitHub for most things, but leave peps@ around for semi-private discussions when needed (hopefully rarely!). |
| The standard PEP workflow is: | ||
|
|
||
| * You, the PEP author, clones the `PEP repository`_, and create a file named | ||
| `pep-xxxx.rst` that contains your new PEP. Use "XXX" as your draft PEP |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
pep-xxxx.rst or pep-0xxx.rst
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By the way, python.org's PEP importer doesn't notice the .rst extension at the moment. I'm planning to fix it this weekend.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the markup fix. I'll apply that and push it.
As for .rst - should I change it to .txt or keep it know that you're going to make it all better? :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We'd like the .rst extension to work so that PEPs render nicely in the GitHub UI: #1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't want to block this because of python.org. I'd say keep it as-is. I've already wrote the code so I just need a couple of hours to write a unit test and cleanup the code :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cool, we'll keep .rst then.
| authors are not Python committers yet, so PEP editors do the commits for them. | ||
| Updates to existing PEPs should be submitted as a `GitHub pull request`_. | ||
| Questions may of course still be sent to <peps@python.org>. Many PEP authors | ||
| are not Python committers yet, so PEP editors do the commits for them. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can remove the last sentence since we don't commit their updates for them anymore.
|
|
||
| The standard PEP workflow is: | ||
|
|
||
| * You, the PEP author, clones the `PEP repository`_, and create a file named |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Typical GitHub terminology here would be to "fork the PEP repository on GitHub"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ncoghlan I was sticking with git terminology, but I'm okay with using GitHub terminology. Just don't even get me started between "pull requests" and "merge requests"!
| * You, the PEP author, clones the `PEP repository`_, and create a file named | ||
| ``pep-0xxx.rst`` that contains your new PEP. Use "XXX" as your draft PEP | ||
| number. | ||
| * Push this to your GitHub clone and submit a pull request. |
| email in a timely manner, the PEP editors will make a unilateral | ||
| decision (it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :). | ||
| If you are interested in assuming ownership of a PEP, you can also do this via | ||
| pull request. Clone the git repository, make your ownership modification, and |
Use GitHub terminology rather than generic git terminology.
|
I figured it made sense to go ahead and merge this, since it's already more accurate than what we had previously, and any further fixes can just go in a new PR |
4 participants
No description provided.