On 13 January 2011 12:02, P.J. Eby <pje@tele...> wrote:
> At 02:52 PM 1/12/2011 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Alice BevanMcGregor
>> <alice@goth...> wrote:
>> > On 2011-01-10 13:12:57 -0800, Guido van Rossum said:
>> >> Ok, now that we've had a week of back and forth about this, let me
>> >> repeat
>> >> my "threat". Unless more concerns are brought up in the next 24 hours,
>> >> can
>> >> PEP 3333 be accepted? It seems a lot of people are waiting for a
>> >> decision
>> >> that enables implementers to go ahead and claim PEP 333
>> >> compatibility.
>> >> PEP 444 can take longer.
>> > With the lack of responses, can I assume this has been or will be
>> > shortly
>> > marked as "accepted"?
>> Yep. Phillip, can you do the honors?
> Apparently not -- I went to check it in and found Raymond had already marked
> it "Final". ;-)
> (I'm not clear on whether there's a difference between "Final" and
> "Accepted" heredifference, but I assume that if we find some sort of actual
> error we can still fix it.)
You can partly blame me for that. They were talking about WSGI and
Python 3 on #python-dev and I mentioned that Guido had just blessed it
and made mistake of mentioning the word 'final' in the sentence not
knowing anything about what next status would be. Anyway, Raymond
decided to take it on themselves to update even though I said to leave
it to you. There response since is 'IIRC, informational peps go
straight to final upon acceptance.'. So, they seem to think that the
final status is correct.