PEP 689: Rename to "Unstable C API tier" #2576
Conversation
|
All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement. |
> The current wording is in the rationale section, which is > setting out the justification for the proposal. To me, it > seems odd to phrase it "We need <feature> because <thing> > requires <requirement>, but we don't guarantee requirement. > > My suggested rephrasing more explicity spells out that we > want to support <thing> properly, there is a reason the > current state doesn't work (no guarantees at an API level > of stability), and hence <feature> is needed that provides > those guarantees. - python#2559 (comment)
|
Edit: My email notification said I need to sign it, seems the bot updated the status already. Odd it popped up though, it hasn't done on recent PRs I've been a co-author for. A |
| Additions to the unstable tier will count as *stabilization*, | ||
| and will be allowed up to Release Candidate 1. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This sentence now reads oddly, although it makes sense on the second reading (I think!)
A
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, the terminology is not perfect -- there's something more unstable than the unstable API.
But as discussed in the thread, it's better than “semi-stable”.
Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Sorry for the noise. I tried to attribute the commit to you, but the bot didn't like it, so I force-pushed with myself as |
|
@encukou You could use |
|
He did: 5232fda (I don't know what happened with the CLA bot though, or if it will happen again) A |
|
Perhaps it didn't like your GitHub autogenerated address? |
Also includes a change proposed in the initial review.