PEP 766: Explicit Priority Choices Among Multiple Indexes (index priority)

[msarahan]

Basic requirements (all PEP Types)

• Read and followed PEP 1 & PEP 12
• File created from the latest PEP template
• PEP has next available number, & set in filename (pep-NNNN.rst), PR title (PEP 123: <Title of PEP>) and PEP header
• Title clearly, accurately and concisely describes the content in 79 characters or less
• Core dev/PEP editor listed as Author or Sponsor, and formally confirmed their approval
• Author, Status (Draft), Type and Created headers filled out correctly
• PEP-Delegate, Topic, Requires and Replaces headers completed if appropriate
• Required sections included
  • Abstract (first section)
  • Copyright (last section; exact wording from template required)
• Code is well-formatted (PEP 7/PEP 8) and is in code blocks, with the right lexer names if non-Python
• PEP builds with no warnings, pre-commit checks pass and content displays as intended in the rendered HTML
• Authors/sponsor added to .github/CODEOWNERS for the PEP

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4123.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0766/

[ghost]

All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement.

[msarahan]

Thanks for the help, @hugovk.

[hugovk]

Some little nits

[msarahan]

Anything else needed here, @hugovk ? Barry explained to me that we should try to get this merged, then continue to revise the content according to discussions on discourse.

[hugovk]

Yep, if no-one has any comments let's merge! @warsaw: any final review suggestions, or good to merge?

@msarahan Once merged, please open a new discussion topic, then open a quick PR to put that link under Discussions-To, and also append it to Post-History (re: https://peps.python.org/pep-0001/#discussing-a-pep)

[msarahan]

Is a new discussion topic necessary? I read that part of PEP 1, but I think the thread at https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-766-handling-multiple-indexes-index-priority/71589 fulfills the purpose described by PEP 1 of being a canonical discussion place, and the thread isn't terribly long (yet?)

I feel like starting a new topic would only spread the existing discussion around more places.

[warsaw]

Good from my side, thanks @hugovk. I'll go ahead and merge.

[hugovk]

Is a new discussion topic necessary? I read that part of PEP 1, but I think the thread at https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-766-handling-multiple-indexes-index-priority/71589 fulfills the purpose described by PEP 1 of being a canonical discussion place, and the thread isn't terribly long (yet?)

Yeah, this is why PEP 1 says to open the canonical discussion after merging the PR and getting the proper PEP URL.

I feel like starting a new topic would only spread the existing discussion around more places.

Fair enough, please could you edit the top post to link to https://peps.python.org/pep-0766/ and not just this PR?