# Sample — first 20 chunks (of 532) ## 6cde6f4427a20512 · peps/pep-0001.rst · (root) · L1-30 · ~294 tok · flags:- ``` PEP: 1 Title: PEP Purpose and Guidelines Author: Barry Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton, David Goodger, Alyssa Coghlan Status: Active Type: Process Created: 13-Jun-2000 Post-History: 21-Mar-2001, 29-Jul-2002, 03-May-2003, 05-May-2012, 07-Apr-2013 What is a PEP? ============== PEP stands for Python Enhancement Proposal. A PEP is a design document providing information to the Python community,… ``` ## 2896aba8025341a6 · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Audience · L33-43 · ~126 tok · flags:- ``` PEP Audience ============ The typical primary audience for PEPs are the core developers of the CPython reference interpreter and their elected Steering Council, as well as developers of other implementations of the Python language specification. However, other parts of the Python community may also choose to use the process (particularly for Informational PEPs) to document expected API conventio… ``` ## 5a3d158b69f132e1 · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Types · L46-73 · ~329 tok · flags:- ``` PEP Types ========= There are three kinds of PEP: 1. A **Standards Track** PEP describes a new feature or implementation for Python. It may also describe an interoperability standard that will be supported outside the standard library for current Python versions before a subsequent PEP adds standard library support in a future version. 2. An **Informational** PEP describes a Python … ``` ## 83c9d584f1bda3da · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow · L76-92 · ~135 tok · flags:- ``` PEP Workflow ============ Python's Steering Council ------------------------- There are several references in this PEP to the "Steering Council" or "Council". This refers to the current members of the elected Steering Council described in :pep:`13`, in their role as the final authorities on whether or not PEPs will be accepted or rejected. Python's Core Developers ------------------------ Ther… ``` ## 53a956143439b983 · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow > Python's BDFL · L95-103 · ~121 tok · flags:- ``` Python's BDFL ------------- Previous versions of this PEP used the title "BDFL-Delegate" for PEP decision makers. This was a historical reference to Python's previous governance model, where all design authority ultimately derived from Guido van Rossum, the original creator of the Python programming language. By contrast, the Steering Council's design authority derives from their election by the … ``` ## f08222e2097b8b11 · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow > PEP Editors · L106-117 · ~122 tok · flags:- ``` PEP Editors ----------- The PEP editors are individuals responsible for managing the administrative and editorial aspects of the PEP workflow (e.g. assigning PEP numbers and changing their status). See `PEP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow`_ for details. PEP editorship is by invitation of the current editors, and they can be contacted by mentioning ``@python/pep-editors`` on GitHub. All of t… ``` ## bf83fe2c594c454b · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow > Start with an idea for Python · L120-157 · ~528 tok · flags:- ``` Start with an idea for Python ----------------------------- The PEP process begins with a new idea for Python. It is highly recommended that a single PEP contain a single key proposal or new idea; the more focused the PEP, the more successful it tends to be. Most enhancements and bug fixes don't need a PEP and can be submitted directly to the `Python issue tracker`_. The PEP editors reserve the … ``` ## 99e5dcf20e431204 · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow > Submitting a PEP · L160-208 · ~600 tok · flags:- ``` Submitting a PEP ---------------- Following the above initial discussion, the workflow varies based on whether any of the PEP's co-authors are core developers. If one or more of the PEP's co-authors are core developers, they are responsible for following the process outlined below. Otherwise (i.e. none of the co-authors are core developers), then the PEP author(s) will need to find a sponsor for … ``` ## 8abb742cd8c1aff4 · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow > Submitting a PEP · L210-248 · ~536 tok · flags:- ``` * It is sound and complete. The ideas must make technical sense. The editors do not consider whether they seem likely to be accepted. * The title accurately describes the content. * The PEP's language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.) and code style (examples should match :pep:`7` & :pep:`8`) should be correct and conformant. The PEP text will be automatically chec… ``` ## a6cc0a620767e0ee · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow > Submitting a PEP · L250-260 · ~152 tok · flags:- ``` As updates are necessary, the PEP author can check in new versions if they (or a collaborating developer) have write access to the `PEP repository`_. Getting a PEP number assigned early can be useful for ease of reference, especially when multiple draft PEPs are being considered at the same time. Standards Track PEPs consist of two parts, a design document and a reference implementation. It is g… ``` ## 89664640a994dcbe · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow > Discussing a PEP · L263-302 · ~476 tok · flags:- ``` Discussing a PEP ---------------- As soon as a PEP number has been assigned and the draft PEP is committed to the `PEP repository`_, a discussion thread for the PEP should be created to provide a central place to discuss and review its contents, and the PEP should be updated so that the ``Discussions-To`` header links to it. The PEP authors (or sponsor, if applicable) may select any reasonable v… ``` ## 18a5b00bf64b670a · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow > Discussing a PEP · L304-321 · ~268 tok · flags:- ``` PEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a PEP before submitting it for review. However, to avoid long-winded and open-ended discussions, strategies such as soliciting private or more narrowly-tailored feedback in the early design phase, collaborating with other community members with expertise in the PEP's subject matter, and picking an appropriately-specialized discussion… ``` ## b792a5a97c031908 · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow > PEP Review & Resolution · L324-364 · ~583 tok · flags:- ``` PEP Review & Resolution ----------------------- Once the authors have completed a PEP, they may request a review for style and consistency from the PEP editors. However, content review and acceptance of the PEP is ultimately the responsibility of the Steering Council, which is formally initiated by opening a `Steering Council issue`_ once the authors (and sponsor, if any) determine the PEP is rea… ``` ## 2e3653b82761f0ea · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow > PEP Review & Resolution · L366-403 · ~580 tok · flags:- ``` The Steering Council will generally approve such self-nominations by default, but may choose to decline them. Possible reasons for the Steering Council declining a self-nomination as PEP-Delegate include, but are not limited to, perceptions of a potential conflict of interest (e.g. working for the same organisation as the PEP submitter), or simply considering another potential PEP-Delegate to be m… ``` ## a8cdd4f49e2f5602 · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow > PEP Review & Resolution · L405-448 · ~592 tok · flags:- ``` Except where otherwise approved by the Steering Council, pronouncements of PEP resolution will be posted to the `PEPs category`_ on the `Python Discourse`_. Once a PEP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be completed. When the reference implementation is complete and incorporated into the main source code repository, the status will be changed to "Final". To allow gathering of … ``` ## 2d31d3856f177cd5 · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow > PEP Review & Resolution · L450-464 · ~195 tok · flags:- ``` .. image:: pep-0001/process_flow.svg :class: invert-in-dark-mode :alt: PEP process flow diagram While not shown in the diagram, "Accepted" PEPs may technically move to "Rejected" or "Withdrawn" even after acceptance. This will only occur if the implementation process reveals fundamental flaws in the design that were not noticed prior to acceptance of the PEP. Unlike Provisional PEPs, these … ``` ## 1ca6e32fdad1f212 · peps/pep-0001.rst · PEP Workflow > PEP Maintenance · L467-488 · ~290 tok · flags:- ``` PEP Maintenance --------------- In general, PEPs are no longer substantially modified after they have reached the Accepted, Final, Rejected or Superseded state. Once resolution is reached, a PEP is considered a historical document rather than a living specification. Formal documentation of the expected behavior should be maintained elsewhere, such as the `Language Reference`_ for core features, t… ``` ## 1a6c2f6d66a8f951 · peps/pep-0001.rst · What belongs in a successful PEP? · L491-541 · ~567 tok · flags:- ``` What belongs in a successful PEP? ================================= Each PEP should have the following parts/sections: 1. Preamble -- :rfc:`2822` style headers containing meta-data about the PEP, including the PEP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), the names, and optionally the contact info for each author, etc. 2. Abstract -- a short (~200 word)… ``` ## fe594939e4d8fef2 · peps/pep-0001.rst · What belongs in a successful PEP? · L543-582 · ~497 tok · flags:- ``` This section may include key points and recommended documentation changes that would help users adopt a new feature or migrate their code to use a language change. 9. Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must be completed before any PEP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the PEP is accepted. While there is merit to the approach of r… ``` ## 8bc22a0f89b044d3 · peps/pep-0001.rst · What belongs in a successful PEP? · L584-596 · ~210 tok · flags:- ``` 14. Change History -- A summary of major changes the PEP has undergone, based on discussions and feedback. Think of this as a "changelog" or "release notes" for the PEP. In general, whenever you update the ``Post-History`` header for major changes, add a new bullet item in newest-first (i.e. reverse chronological) order, using the same ``DD-MMM-YYYY`` format, with sub-bullets … ```