Summary of possible backend implementation strategies to achieve this:
-
Add
Packaging
option to existingType
header (Standards Track
,Informational
, etc)
Arguably most natural fit within the existing frontend and backend
Allows more easily codifying current and future process differences
Requires more PEP 1/PEP 12 changes, both substantive and mechanical
Carries potential governance implications -
New
Category
header
Useful and extensible to other PEPs
Relatively lightweight from a policy perspective
Implies categorizing other PEPs and requires a few more backend changes
A bit odd to special-case packaging with it without more frontend changes -
Use heuristics on
Discussions-To
header or hardcode list of packaging PEPs
Requires fewer changes than some other options
Awful, hacky and inherently unstable and unreliable
This was also my initial impression as well, based on the limited information in the OP. To note though, implementation wise, perhaps the most practical way that was suggested to achieve this within the existing system without hacks, excessive hardcoding/special-casing or affecting other PEPs is adding a new Packaging
value for Type
, which inherently carries at least some implied degree of significance for process/governance, for better (documenting existing practice and making future changes smoother) or worse (revisiting a bigger debate).
Also, to note, thereβs been a concerted and growing push recently to make the PEP process as a whole friendlier, less arcane, more streamlined and better documented, coupled with a tighter focus on PEPs as change proposals rather than living specifications or documentation while working to find better homes for the latter (modeled on the mostly-successful effort to move PyPA specs to the PyPUG).