| DEP: | XXXX |
|---|---|
| Author: | Jacob Kaplan-Moss |
| Implementation Team: | Jacob Kaplan-Moss |
| Shepherd: | Andrew Godwin, Carl Meyer |
| Status: | Draft |
| Type: | Feature |
| Created: | 2014-11-16 |
| Last-Modified: | 2014-11-18 |
Table of Contents
This DEP provides a sample template for creating your own DEPs. In conjunction with the content guidelines in DEP 1, this should make it easy for you to conform your own DEPs to the format outlined below.
Note: if you are reading this DEP via the web, you should first grab the source of this DEP in order to complete the steps below. DO NOT USE THE HTML FILE AS YOUR TEMPLATE!
To get the source this (or any) DEP, look at the top of the Github page and click "raw".
If you're unfamiliar with reStructuredText (the format required of DEPs), see these resources:
- A ReStructuredText Primer, a gentle introduction.
- Quick reStructuredText, a users' quick reference.
- reStructuredText Markup Specification, the final authority.
Once you've made a copy of this template, remove this abstract, fill out the metadata above and the sections below, then submit the DEP. Follow the guidelines in DEP 1.
This should be a short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
This (and the above metadata) is the only section strictly required to submit a draft DEP; the following sections can be barebones and fleshed out as you work through the DEP process.
This section should contain a complete, detailed technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow implementation -- that is, developers other than the author should (given the right experience) be able to independently implement the feature, given only the DEP.
This section should explain why this DEP is needed. The motivation is critical for DEPs that want to add substantial new features or materially refactor existing ones. It should clearly explain why the existing solutions are inadequate to address the problem that the DEP solves. DEP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
This section should flesh out out the specification by describing what motivated the specific design design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work.
The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the community and discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
If this DEP introduces backwards incompatibilities, you must must include this section. It should describe these incompatibilities and their severity, and what mitigation you plan to take to deal with these incompatibilities.
If there's an implementation of the feature under discussion in this DEP, this section should include or link to that implementation and provide any notes about installing/using/trying out the implementation.
This document has been placed in the public domain per the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal license (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed).
(All DEPs must include this exact copyright statement.)