Skip to content
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

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

thibaudcolas
Copy link
Member

Follow-up to #81, and #91, updating the terminology in use to reflect current governance, with the exception of DEP 10.

Copy link
Member

@tim-schilling tim-schilling left a 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.

@nanuxbe
Copy link

nanuxbe commented Jan 6, 2025

+1

Copy link
Member

@carltongibson carltongibson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep great thanks. 👍

Copy link

@LilyFoote LilyFoote left a 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

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:

Suggested change
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...

Comment on lines -154 to +155
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

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.

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants