PEP 763: Mark as Withdrawn #4601
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: William Woodruff <william@astral.sh>
Member
|
Please could you add a new section above Abstract with a summary of the reasons for withdrawing? The text of this PR summary would be fine to use, etc. I think there are previous examples if you search for 'Withdrawal Notice' or similar. It'd also be good to add the Resolution header, if possible. A |
Signed-off-by: William Woodruff <william@astral.sh>
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks @AA-Turner! I've linked to the DPO comment and added a withdrawal notice section (mirrored the other ones I found). |
AA-Turner
approved these changes
Sep 29, 2025
zklaus
pushed a commit
to zklaus/peps
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 3, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As the PEP's author, I'm marking PEP 763 as withdrawn -- I think that the overall approach defined in this PEP makes sense, but I don't think there's a clear route to acceptance here that can surmount procedural problems with this being a PEP versus a matter of PyPI policy (like account management, AUPs, malware, quotas, etc.).
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4601.org.readthedocs.build/