PEP 817: Wheel Variants: switch to Informational, major update - #5149
pradyunsg merged 9 commits into
Conversation
Sorry, something went wrong.
Co-authored-by: rgommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com>
The largest addition is a side-by-side comparison of five design options, which are the ones we've considered and those that have been brought up in the various discussions on DPO. It's deliberately side-by-side, so reviewers can understand how we arrived at the current design. Note that in a call a while back, I showed a similar table to the one added now, but with more decision criteria and explicit scoring (good, medium, bad with emoji's); I decided against that because any scoring as well as the choices of more detailed criteria can all be argued with, while the version in this PR is as objective as possible. Other sections that are updated: - Abstract - Overview of Standards Track PEPs - Backwards Compatibility - Security Implications - Change History - Adoption and Rollout (new) Sections added or touched in the design overview: - Depending on a variant-enabled package (new; this question has come up very regularly) - Package ABI matching (needed a tweak) The Motivation and Prior Art sections were not touched significantly.
Documentation build overview29 files changed · + 2 added · ± 26 modified · - 1 deleted + Added ± Modified
- Deleted |
Sorry, something went wrong.
warsaw
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have to be honest, both the PEP and the diff are pretty big. I have a bunch of comments and suggestions, but I stalled out several times.
I'm not sure what to suggest, other than try to be more concise in the purpose of this PEP, with a keen eye toward not repeating specifications that will end up in other PEPs for which this one is an umbrella. Other than that, once you resolve my comments, ping me and I'll rubber stamp merge it.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Co-authored-by: Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org>
Also a few very minor grammatical fixes.
@warsaw thank you for the detailed review! I accepted all your suggestions, and the four that required some thought I left open (all accepted in line with your suggestions). As for "be more concise", that's hard, since the scope is so large. We decided not to touch Motivation or Prior Art from the last round, since those sections seemed fine and didn't yield complaints in previous review - but to shorten, that's probably the place to cut down. The new "The Design Space" section is critical, and summarizes O(1,000) DPO posts, it's as concise as we could manage. And "The wheel variants design" seems needed too, there isn't too much to cut there, and we aimed to do it by worked example to avoid overlap with other PEPs. And there are no specifications at all here, only the 10,000 ft overview. It's probably possible to shrink it a bit, but not a whole lot - I don't think that attempting to further shrink it would be time well-spent. Please take another look. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Co-authored-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>
willingc
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Thanks @willingc! I agree it'd be good to merge this as is now - we'd like to start new DPO threads for this PEP 817 update and for the just-merged PEP 850 in parallel, given that they complement each other. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I am still getting used to the exact merge rules on this repo; I see "Merging is blocked; All comments must be resolved." the few I left open are all addressed, I just wanted to leave them unresolved in case @warsaw wanted to take another look. They can be resolved just fine right now though, if that's what's needed. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
This is a large update to the first PEP on Wheel Variants, turning it from an all-in-one Standards Track PEP to an Informational PEP that will serve as the umbrella for the various Standards Track PEPs.
The Specification section has been removed, as that doesn't fit in an Informational PEP.
The Design overview section has been updated, to bring it in line with PEP 825 and current design of the next PEPs.
The largest addition is a side-by-side comparison of five design options, which are the ones we've considered and those that have been brought up in the various discussions on DPO. It's deliberately side-by-side, so reviewers can understand how we arrived at the current design.
Other sections that are updated:
The Motivation and Prior Art sections were not touched significantly.