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

Mark 3.12 PEPs as Final #3817

Open
1 of 4 tasks
ncoghlan opened this issue Jun 5, 2024 · 6 comments
Open
1 of 4 tasks

Mark 3.12 PEPs as Final #3817

ncoghlan opened this issue Jun 5, 2024 · 6 comments
Labels
meta Related to the repo itself and its processes

Comments

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Contributor

ncoghlan commented Jun 5, 2024

I believe the following two accepted PEPs targeting 3.12 are actually complete:

I'm assuming the following PEP is being left open until the field is actually removed in 3.14 (which could be implemented on main now that 3.13 is in beta):

I'm also not sure if the conversion of the standard library to multi-phase initialisation is complete yet:

(Posted based on https://discuss.python.org/t/accepted-but-not-final-python-3-12-peps/54720, and adopting #3781 as a good precedent to follow. PEP 684 was open when the Discuss thread was started, but subsequently marked as Final in #3810).

@hugovk hugovk mentioned this issue Jun 5, 2024
6 tasks
@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Jun 5, 2024

PEP-687 just got "feature-complete" for 3.13 beta 2, thanks to Eric and Erlend. AFAIK there's more cleanup to do.

PEP-683 needs updating the TODOs.

@Fidget-Spinner
Copy link
Member

I'm not sure what to do with PEP 699. AFAIK, the field has been repurposed to mean something else for the most part by now. All that's left should be to remove the code guaranteeing the increments in 3.14 and it should be done?

@ericsnowcurrently
Copy link
Member

Yes, 683 is should be marked "final".

@ncoghlan ncoghlan mentioned this issue Jun 6, 2024
6 tasks
@ncoghlan
Copy link
Contributor Author

ncoghlan commented Jun 6, 2024

@ericsnowcurrently #3824 marks PEP 683 as Final. The edits to the acceptance criteria need to be confirmed as correct, as do the two unchecked checkboxes.

I'm wondering if it might be worth adding more detail on immortal objects to a new subheading in https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/refcounting.html though, as the best canonical doc reference I could find in the reference docs is to the term reference count which really just mentions immortal objects rather than explaining them. A glossary entry referencing that new subsection would also be helpful.

The two explanatory links in the C API docs go to the PEP, which is about to be marked as no longer to be trusted as living documentation.

@ericsnowcurrently
Copy link
Member

I'm wondering if it might be worth adding more detail on immortal objects to a new subheading in https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/refcounting.html though, as the best canonical doc reference I could find in the reference docs is to the term reference count which really just mentions immortal objects rather than explaining them. A glossary entry referencing that new subsection would also be helpful.

The two explanatory links in the C API docs go to the PEP, which is about to be marked as no longer to be trusted as living documentation.

Let's discuss this on python/cpython#120426.

@ericsnowcurrently
Copy link
Member

Regarding PEP 687, you can see the implementation status on python/cpython#103092. Only the faulthandler module is left and I'm not sure that's worth waiting to mark the PEP as final.

@hugovk hugovk added the meta Related to the repo itself and its processes label Sep 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
meta Related to the repo itself and its processes
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants