PEP 817: Wheel Variants: switch to Informational, major update

[rgommers]

This is a large update to the first PEP on Wheel Variants, turning it from an all-in-one Standards Track PEP to an Informational PEP that will serve as the umbrella for the various Standards Track PEPs.

The Specification section has been removed, as that doesn't fit in an Informational PEP.

The Design overview section has been updated, to bring it in line with PEP 825 and current design of the next PEPs.

The largest addition is a side-by-side comparison of five design options, which are the ones we've considered and those that have been brought up in the various discussions on DPO. It's deliberately side-by-side, so reviewers can understand how we arrived at the current design.

Other sections that are updated:

• Abstract
• Overview of Standards Track PEPs
• Backwards Compatibility
• Security Implications
• Change History
• Adoption and Rollout (new)

The Motivation and Prior Art sections were not touched significantly.

• Change is either:
  • To a Draft PEP
  • To an Accepted or Final PEP, with Steering Council approval
  • To fix an editorial issue (markup, typo, link, header, etc)
• PR title prefixed with PEP number (e.g. PEP 123: Summary of changes)

[read-the-docs-community]

Documentation build overview

📚 pep-previews | 🛠️ Build #35252109 | 📁 Comparing 8421e9e against latest (50803e5)

  🔍 Preview build  

29 files changed · + 2 added · ± 26 modified · - 1 deleted

+ Added

• pep-0850/index.html
• pep-0850/appendix-variant-json-schema/index.html

± Modified

• index.html
• numerical/index.html
• pep-0000/index.html
• pep-0384/index.html
• pep-0489/index.html
• pep-0619/index.html
• pep-0652/index.html
• pep-0664/index.html
• pep-0693/index.html
• pep-0719/index.html
• and 16 more...

- Deleted

• pep-0817/appendix-variant-metadata-json-schema/index.html

[warsaw]

I have to be honest, both the PEP and the diff are pretty big. I have a bunch of comments and suggestions, but I stalled out several times.

I'm not sure what to suggest, other than try to be more concise in the purpose of this PEP, with a keen eye toward not repeating specifications that will end up in other PEPs for which this one is an umbrella. Other than that, once you resolve my comments, ping me and I'll rubber stamp merge it.

[rgommers]

I'm not sure what to suggest, other than try to be more concise in the purpose of this PEP, with a keen eye toward not repeating specifications that will end up in other PEPs for which this one is an umbrella. Other than that, once you resolve my comments, ping me and I'll rubber stamp merge it.

@warsaw thank you for the detailed review! I accepted all your suggestions, and the four that required some thought I left open (all accepted in line with your suggestions).

As for "be more concise", that's hard, since the scope is so large. We decided not to touch Motivation or Prior Art from the last round, since those sections seemed fine and didn't yield complaints in previous review - but to shorten, that's probably the place to cut down. The new "The Design Space" section is critical, and summarizes O(1,000) DPO posts, it's as concise as we could manage. And "The wheel variants design" seems needed too, there isn't too much to cut there, and we aimed to do it by worked example to avoid overlap with other PEPs. And there are no specifications at all here, only the 10,000 ft overview. It's probably possible to shrink it a bit, but not a whole lot - I don't think that attempting to further shrink it would be time well-spent.

Please take another look.

[willingc]

@warsaw @rgommers The changes that I see in this document accurately reflects my recent understanding of available information around wheel variants. Since this is Informational now, I believe merging sooner versus later makes good sense (especially since the Packaging Council is now seated).

[rgommers]

Thanks @willingc! I agree it'd be good to merge this as is now - we'd like to start new DPO threads for this PEP 817 update and for the just-merged PEP 850 in parallel, given that they complement each other.

[rgommers]

I am still getting used to the exact merge rules on this repo; I see "Merging is blocked; All comments must be resolved." the few I left open are all addressed, I just wanted to leave them unresolved in case @warsaw wanted to take another look. They can be resolved just fine right now though, if that's what's needed.

[rgommers]

Thanks for the review & the merge everyone - on to DPO!