Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PEP 639: Clarify License-File field, slim down terminology & remove future PEPs #2298

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 3, 2022

Conversation

CAM-Gerlach
Copy link
Member

Following @pfmoore and @brettcannon 's feedback, I've revised some of the License-File text to state that it represents a record of the license file relative paths in the project source tree, and in the PyPA-specified distribution and installed projects formats to the file paths relative to the defined license root directory, with its meaning in unspecified legacy, new and non-standard distribution, installation and metadata formats defined by the needs of the particular format. I've also clarified a bit of terminology elsewhere.

Also, as another incremental step toward reducing the length of the PEP, I've eliminated the superfluous "Future PEPs" section, since none of those speculated PEPs are directly germane to this one, and also greatly slimmed down the terminology section, particularly the introductory material and from the PyPA PyPUG glossary. This cuts out around a page of the PEP's total length. I've also moved the User Scenarios section to an appendix, reducing the main PEP length by 2 more pages, and de-numbered the existing appendices. If and when PEP-0676 is accepted, all of the appendices, along with all the rejected ideas but a summary of the most important, will be moved to separate linked documents in the PEP repo, reducing the main PEP's length by a further nearly 2/3rds and the ToC by over 3/4. The Open Issues will also be eliminated once closed.

Copy link
Member

@AA-Turner AA-Turner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some minor comments, looks good otherwise.

A

pep-0639.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0639.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0639.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0639.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@AA-Turner
Copy link
Member

(just realised I already "approved" this, I suppose approving a second time doesn't hurt!)

@CAM-Gerlach
Copy link
Member Author

Also, @brettcannon , if you still feel that licenses is a better option than license_files for the directory name, I could make that change here too—its a pretty simple one, since I only have to replace it a few places and update the short rejected idea accordingly. Jjust let me know!

@brettcannon
Copy link
Member

@CAM-Gerlach let's worry about bikeshedding for another PR. 😉

@brettcannon brettcannon removed their request for review February 3, 2022 22:47
@brettcannon
Copy link
Member

FYI don't wait on my review to merge this and get the PEP to a state that you want me to review it.

@CAM-Gerlach CAM-Gerlach removed the request for review from pfmoore February 3, 2022 23:16
@CAM-Gerlach CAM-Gerlach merged commit 670de66 into python:main Feb 3, 2022
@CAM-Gerlach
Copy link
Member Author

Done, thanks @brettcannon !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants