From 214b0fc606cee9c069a7f1a7208cc6a0d2d56167 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Zac Hatfield-Dodds <zac.hatfield.dodds@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 23:47:23 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] add discuss link

---
 peps/pep-0806.rst | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/peps/pep-0806.rst b/peps/pep-0806.rst
index 87faba7a9c3..dc882147a60 100644
--- a/peps/pep-0806.rst
+++ b/peps/pep-0806.rst
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ Created: 05-Sep-2025
 Python-Version: 3.15
 Post-History:
   `22-May-2025 <https://discuss.python.org/t/92939/>`__,
+  `25-Sep-2025 <https://discuss.python.org/t/103971/>`__,
 
 Abstract
 ========
@@ -197,7 +198,8 @@ executing ``await sleep(0)``) to allow cancellation is undesirable.  On the
 other hand, *omitting* ``await sleep(0)`` would break the transitive property
 that a syntactic ``await`` / ``async for`` / ``async with`` always calls back
 into the async runtime (or raises an exception).  While few codebases enforce
-this property, we have found it indispensable in preventing deadlocks.
+this property today, we have found it indispensable in preventing deadlocks,
+and accordingly prefer a cleaner foundation for the ecosystem.
 
 
 Workaround: using ``AsyncExitStack``