On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Carl Meyer <c...@oddbird.net> wrote: > Hi Anssi, > > On 05/09/2016 06:53 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > I'm curious to hear more about this - could you give some example DEPs > where this was a problem? In the case of the two DEPs I was most closely > involved with (multiple template engines and rethinking middleware), I > don't think this is an accurate description of what happened. Both those > DEPs were written relatively early in the design process and evolved as > we learned from discussion and implementation. > They were done quite similarly to how the PEPs I've worked on were done. > > I'm also curious about your use of the word "enforced." I don't really > see the DEP process as something that needs "enforcement" (and I'm > curious where you see it as having been lacking in "enforcement"). IMO > the only relevant "enforcement," really, is that the implementation of a > DEP which is rejected by the technical board (has never happened yet) > should not be merged.
It's not so much the DEPs that have been written (though the channels DEP is going to be post-design instead of supporting the design). It's more about those features that don't have a DEP at all. For example database schemas and subquery expressions come to mind (these are ongoing work, PRs available at GitHub). There are various design choices and the features are somewhat significant, yet the design hasn't been at all DEP driven. Also, having DEP requested for channels only at this point, and Andrew (a technical board member) assuming a DEP wasn't required should point out there might be a problem. This is not to criticize Andrew but the way DEPs are sometimes required, sometimes not. I'm not seeing a problem with the DEP idea in general, with any particular DEP or with any single feature having or not having a DEP. I'm criticizing the approach where sometimes patches are called out randomly for DEP, often at a point where the DEP is just documenting what has been already decided, not supporting the decision process itself. I probably picked the wrong thread to complain about this - if we are going to want DEPs for features similar to the ideas discussed in this thread, then the timing for requesting a DEP was accurate. - Anssi -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALMtK1E9axuBW5y673LSAE3-2%2BUg45JcPL%2BNLQJVsUrjQ3aLzg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
