Skip to content

Conversation

@hoodmane
Copy link
Contributor

@hoodmane hoodmane commented Mar 28, 2025

cc @pfmoore.

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

Standards Track requirements

  • PEP topic discussed in a suitable venue with general agreement that a PEP is appropriate
  • Suggested sections included (unless not applicable)
    • Motivation
    • Rationale
    • Specification
    • Backwards Compatibility
    • Security Implications
    • How to Teach This
    • Reference Implementation
    • Rejected Ideas
    • Open Issues
  • Python-Version set to valid (pre-beta) future Python version, if relevant
  • Any project stated in the PEP as supporting/endorsing/benefiting from the PEP formally confirmed such
  • Right before or after initial merging, PEP discussion thread created and linked to in Discussions-To and Post-History

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4328.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0783/

@hoodmane hoodmane requested a review from a team as a code owner March 28, 2025 12:04
@hoodmane hoodmane changed the title PEP tbd: Emscripten packaging PEP 783: Emscripten packaging Mar 28, 2025
Copy link
Member

@AA-Turner AA-Turner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Brief review:

hoodmane and others added 2 commits March 29, 2025 10:34
Co-authored-by: Adam Turner <9087854+AA-Turner@users.noreply.github.com>
@hugovk hugovk added the new-pep A new draft PEP submitted for initial review label Mar 29, 2025
Co-authored-by: Adam Turner <9087854+AA-Turner@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Juniper Tyree <50025784+juntyr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@freakboy3742 freakboy3742 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is looking good to me. There's still some finalisation work to be done on the actual Pyodide ABI spec, but that's a living document by definition, so I don't think it needs to hold up anything here.

@hugovk hugovk enabled auto-merge (squash) April 7, 2025 09:39
@hugovk hugovk disabled auto-merge April 7, 2025 09:39
@hugovk hugovk enabled auto-merge (squash) April 7, 2025 09:39
@hugovk hugovk merged commit 0cdfff8 into python:main Apr 7, 2025
5 checks passed
@hoodmane hoodmane deleted the emscripten-packaging-pep branch April 7, 2025 09:40
@hoodmane
Copy link
Contributor Author

hoodmane commented Apr 7, 2025

Thanks again @AA-Turner @freakboy3742 @hugovk and @juntyr for your reviews!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

new-pep A new draft PEP submitted for initial review

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants