Several PEPs: Add Topic: Packaging
#2636
Conversation
|
The following commit authors need to sign the Contributor License Agreement: Click the button to sign: |
|
PEP-691 should also be included. |
pradyunsg
left a comment
pradyunsg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This list looks great. I have a few suggestions for things to exclude. :)
|
@JelleZijlstra -- if @pradyunsg is happy with the new list then this can be merged (the extra headers will do nothing for now). A |
AA-Turner
changed the title
Topic: Packaging
|
FYI: This is still draft, and the CLA check is failing. |
|
Draft: as making it ready to review will ping ~20 people. CI Failing: As the CLA bot doesn't like me. @ambv is aware and doing his best to fix but for now a repo admin (Jelle) needs to merge. Computers can be such fun. A |
|
I can't merge it while it's a draft though. I suppose we'll have to ping them all briefly. |
AA-Turner
requested review from
a team,
CAM-Gerlach,
ambv,
brettcannon,
cjerdonek,
dstufft,
encukou,
kushaldas,
ncoghlan,
njsmith,
pfmoore,
pganssle,
rbtcollins,
warsaw and
zooba
as code owners
AA-Turner
removed request for
CAM-Gerlach,
cjerdonek,
encukou,
kushaldas,
ncoghlan,
njsmith,
pfmoore,
pganssle,
rbtcollins,
warsaw and
zooba
Oh that's annoying. I bit the bullet, hopefully GH is smart enough not to ping if the request is removed in <10 seconds. A |
| Discussions-To: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-632-deprecate-distutils-module/5134 | ||
| Status: Accepted | ||
| Type: Standards Track | ||
| Topic: Packaging |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PEP is standard library, not packaging. It doesn't say anything about what packaging projects should do, and restricts itself to the changes in the stdlib.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
Sorry, something went wrong.
5 participants
Depends on #2579
Opened as draft to not ping for review.
A