As of 2021-02-08, the SC halted module state (and sub-interpreter related) changes with the following statement:
The Steering Council discussed the ongoing work on porting types in the standard library to heap-types and the subinterpreter-related changes. It was decided that through Pablo, the Steering Council will ask the core developers driving those changes to create an informational PEP and not to make any more changes in this area after beta 1, as per our general policy.
In order to resolve the current deadlocked situation, there is an effort over at Petrs abi3 repo to create a fairly informal document that describes how one should proceed when isolating modules in the standard library.
My question for the SC is: Is it the SC's opinion that a more formal document, for example an inform(ation)al1 PEP, is still required, or would a section in the devguide (or a similar stand-alone document) be sufficient?
As of 2021-02-08, the SC halted module state (and sub-interpreter related) changes with the following statement:
The Steering Council discussed the ongoing work on porting types in the standard library to heap-types and the subinterpreter-related changes. It was decided that through Pablo, the Steering Council will ask the core developers driving those changes to create an informational PEP and not to make any more changes in this area after beta 1, as per our general policy.
In order to resolve the current deadlocked situation, there is an effort over at Petrs abi3 repo to create a fairly informal document that describes how one should proceed when isolating modules in the standard library.
My question for the SC is: Is it the SC's opinion that a more formal document, for example an inform(ation)al1 PEP, is still required, or would a section in the devguide (or a similar stand-alone document) be sufficient?
Footnotes
formal/informal pun intended ↩