GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. | ||||||||||||||
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites | ||||||||||||||
GeezerVison is showing github.com — PEP 12: Update guidance on linking PEPs/RFCs per recent changes, and add check for it by CAM-Gerlach · Pull Request #2291 · python/peps Conversation
Member
In #2209 , @AA-Turner removed the legacy implicit PEP/RFC link logic, and batch-converted existing PEPs to use explicit Therefore, it was updated to update these now-misleading descriptions and examples, describe the new practice and explain and give examples of its use. This also, as a necessary side effect, addresses the most straightforward and obvious aspects of #2130 , though I will address the remaining parts of it not directly concerned with PEP/RFC links and footnotes thereof in another separate PR immediately after this one is merged, to keep things focused here. Furthermore, some users may still be tempted to do the latter, whether due to the limitations of GitHub's rendered previews (as saw in #2282 ), or simply being unaware of the role's existence. Ensuring we always reference PEPs with the appropriate roles rather than hard links is simpler, more concise and more reliable, ensures they are formatted correctly and (with the new build system proposed in PEP-0676) allows us to do things like automatically including the PEP title in the link titletext, as users have requested. Therefore, as originally prompted by @AA-Turner 's suggestion on #2282 , this PR adds a cheap Pre-Commit pygrep check for direct hardcoded URLs to other PEPs and RFCs. This avoids regressions in future PEPs (and spot-fixes the couple remaining instances not caught by that PR) and allowing authors and reviewers to easily spot where this occurs and replace it with the simpler, more concise, more reliable and more functional roles. As a historical note, these changes were originally included in #2286 , but @AA-Turner and @JelleZijlstra wisely suggested splitting them out, as they deserved to be addressed separately.
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactions
CAM-Gerlach
requested review from
a team,
brettcannon,
gvanrossum and
warsaw
as code owners
8 tasks done
JelleZijlstra
approved these changes
hugovk
approved these changes
AA-Turner
reviewed
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Only comment here (also, no clue if it matters or not but to give background) I kept this as a full link to go with the other two in this section and below, which are internet drafts and so don't have the nice RFC role. Equally, this is a triviality. A
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactions
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Hmm, I see. To make them more closely match, we could just tweak the other two instead, to something like - `Internet-Draft: JSON Private Key <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jones-jose-json-private-key.html>`To note, I-Ds are intentionally made to not be too friendly to easily reference, since you really aren't "supposed" to outside the context of an explicit citation as a work in progress (and the two mentioned are now expired).
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactions
AA-Turner
approved these changes
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Barring the comment above (clicked the wrong button), which we might not even want to do anything about, this looks good, thanks Cam. A
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactions
Member
All reactions
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Member
Author
All reactions
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
ReviewersUh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. AssigneesLabelsProjectsMilestoneNo milestoneDevelopmentSuccessfully merging this pull request may close these issues. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later. | ||||||||||||||
| You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up. Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required. |