PEP 676: PEP Infrastructure Process

As PEP-Delegate, I am formally accepting PEP 676 - PEP Infrastructure Process. Congratulations, kudos, and gratitude on all the great work you’ve done! I can’t wait for this to roll out.


In the spirit of celebration, three cheers for @AA-Turner all his tireless work to make this possible, and a congratulations is in order here for everyone here who contributed!


Thanks Barry, and especially thank you to those who helped in the initial discussions, first implementation, gave feedback here, assisted with draughting and reviewing the PEP, and to those who gave feedback on the PEP itself, including helping me through the PEP process.

I’ve made contact with the infrastructure team, so now the implementation work starts in earnest! I’ll update this thread with major news.



Great to hear! Let us know once you have an ETA. is now live! Many thanks to the infrastructure team for the quick work!

I also announced the change to python-announce and python-list.



Wow, that was super fast. Thanks to all around!

1 Like

Not sure whether this is the right place to mention this, but there’s a minor quirk with the formatting of PEPs on the new site, e.g. PEP 630 – Isolating Extension Modules |

Code snippets in the text are rendered much larger than regular text, which looks odd. Can this be fixed by e.g. using a different font or font size ?


1 Like

I brought this up earlier; he issue is due to the “system font stack” approach used for the monospaced font, which results in a font that, depending on the platform, OS version, browser and user fonts installed, may or may not match the size of the PEP prose content. Using a standard web font (e.g. Incosolata) would resolve this, as it has a consistent size on every platform, but others favored the “system font stack” approach for other reasons, and thus far the discussion has not reached a resolution:

Ok, I’ll take the discussion to that other thread.