-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 83
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update DEPs terminology to match current landscape #95
Update DEPs terminology to match current landscape #95
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for updating these references Thibaud.
+1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep great thanks. 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Line 74 of the accessibility team DEP still references the Technical Board:
Technical Board as required. To begin, several areas have been identified:
unmaintained), we want to identify it early and start looking for backup plans. | ||
This might mean removing the dependency, taking over maintenance ourselves, | ||
looking for funding to pay new maintainers, etc. | ||
core contributors should re-evaluate all existing dependencies. If some |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if this should be more specific:
core contributors should re-evaluate all existing dependencies. If some | |
Steering Council and Fellows should re-evaluate all existing dependencies. If some |
Otherwise, it's not really clear whose responsibility it is.
But maybe this is straying a bit far from the point of this particular PR...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this seems like a reasonable change to me but too substantive for what I was going for here. If we didn’t think the change I went for is appropriate, I’d rather remove all changes to this DEP.
Django core team, and a de-facto policy emerged of only requiring the lowest | ||
common denominator: installation via direct download and ``python setup.py | ||
Django core contributors, and a de-facto policy emerged of only requiring the | ||
lowest common denominator: installation via direct download and ``python setup.py |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given this is a historical section I think it would be OK not to update the terminology here. That said, that's not a strong opinion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I notice we have two DEP 7s:
final/0007-official-projects.rst
draft/0007-dependency-policy.rst
It's probably out of scope of this PR to fix this, but I think the draft DEP 7 should be re-numbered.
I’ve fixed all conflicts, I see three approvals, are we ok to merge this now? |
Thank you @thibaudcolas! I went ahead and merged it to remove that bit of decision making from your plate. |
Follow-up to #81, and #91, updating the terminology in use to reflect current governance, with the exception of DEP 10.