Hugo van KemenadeJan 23

The biggest PEP:

❯ wc -w peps/pep-*.rst | sort --reverse | head -10
1854017 total
17128 peps/pep-0000.rst
14184 peps/pep-0817.rst
13436 peps/pep-3156.rst
13099 peps/pep-0773.rst
12978 peps/pep-0484.rst
12910 peps/pep-0622.rst
12606 peps/pep-0642.rst
12400 peps/pep-0810.rst
11994 peps/pep-0703.rst

(PEP 0 is the autogenerated index page)

https://peps.python.org/pep-0817/

#Python #PEP #PEP817

PEP 817 – Wheel Variants: Beyond Platform Tags | peps.python.org

Python’s existing wheel packaging format uses packaging:specifications/platform-compatibility-tags to specify a given wheel’s supported environments. These tags are unable to express modern hardware configurations and their features, such as the availab...

Python Enhancement Proposals (PEPs)
Show threadkonstiJan 26

@hugovk Unfortunately, we're still the largest even when only looking at the normative part (and exclude all the quotes and workaround analysis):

1160: pep-0817.rst
997: pep-0703.rst
946: pep-0654.rst
851: pep-0804.rst
780: pep-0646.rst
752: pep-0501.rst
708: pep-0642.rst
668: pep-0492.rst
631: pep-3119.rst
613: pep-3101.rst

We're roughly the same normative length as PEP 440, but that used a different PEP structure so it's not in the list (https://gist.github.com/konstin/79959d713be3b4c6605ba6febcc8beec)

analyze.py

GitHub Gist: instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

Gist
Show threadHugo van KemenadeJan 26
@konstin That's a lot of text!
Show threadkonsti
@hugovk I've been looking at longest and shorted PEP discussion too, and https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-687-isolating-modules-in-the-standard-library/14824 with 4 posts wins shortest accepted PEP discourse thread.
PEP 687: Isolating modules in the standard library

From recent discussions around “what should have a PEP”, it’s clear that this should have been a PEP long ago. Better late than never, I guess! We submit this PEP to explain the changes, seek consensus on whether they are good, propose the remaining changes, and set best practices for new modules. Please head to the PEP page to read it. The initial version is below, so you can quote it, and so that if the PEP is changed future readers can make sense of the discussion. ▶ Text of the PEP:

Discussions on Python.org
Feb 5 at 9:33amElk
Show threadHugo van KemenadeFeb 5

@konstin Four posts including the initial proposal plus the SC acceptance!

I guess because of:

"Much of this proposal has already been implemented. We submit this PEP to explain the changes, seek consensus on whether they are good, propose the remaining changes, and set best practices for new modules."

It also had a grand total of four posts on the mailing list, so eight total:

https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/B3HYQIE4Z5WBJCC3FUZJZHXLM32I4BZA/

Mailman 3 PEP 687 – Isolating modules in the standard library - Python-Dev - python.org