PEP for PyREPL?

[pablogsal (Pablo Galindo Salgado)]

@malemburg

I’m sure it wasn’t intentional and understand that things can sometimes start small and then turn out to have much more impac

Absolutely! To be clear, I was wanted to give some context so it can be easier to understand the process and to clarify what happened for transparency so you (and others) have as much information as possible.

@malemburg

but we have a PEP process for good reasons and should stick to it for all larger changes to the project. Not only because it helps publicize new features, but also to show good governance.

Python no longer is the niche language it was two decades ago when we were able to pull off all kinds of cool things without the formalisms we have now.

To some (including myself, for that matter), that’s unfortunate and it does sometimes feel wrong when you’re passionate about a change, but today we have a responsibility for an installed base of millions of Python installations and many more people, companies and sponsors are watching these developments. Investment in trust, process, stability and predictability comes with this responsibility, whether we like it or not.

Exactly! I very strongly agree with this. Thanks for taking the time to also explain your views clearly. I think this is important and we will do our best to document these changes and the information requested in the PEP.