{{ message }}
PEP 684: Fix invalid format for Discussions-To header - #2395
Merged
AA-Turner merged 1 commit intoMar 9, 2022
Merged
Conversation
JelleZijlstra
approved these changes
Mar 9, 2022
ericsnowcurrently
approved these changes
Mar 9, 2022
ericsnowcurrently
left a comment
ericsnowcurrently
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
People should post to python-dev for discussion, not the archive that link points to. But I guess it isn't that important in the end. It just means Discussions-to isn't all that meaningful. :)
Member
Author
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In #2393 , the
Discussions-Toheader of PEP 684 was updated to an invalid format, per the initial discussion in #2266 documentation in #2346 , initial processing implementation in #2351 , final implementation and full conform in #2361 , and as stated in PEP 1 (PEP-0001) and PEP 12 (PEP-0012) and approved by the Steering Council in python/steering-council#113 . This PR fixes that.To note, I've already implemented and tested updates to the validators to catch regressions like this and hopefully avoid this incident in the future, so that the headers can be easily parsed programmatically (which allows us to do all sorts of nice things without having to touch existing PEPs or ask anything more of PEP authors), and PEP authors are given immediate and specific feedback in case of mistakes. They're just blocked on #2375 which is blocked on #2358 , which should hopefully all be merged very soon.