Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

PEP 1: PEP editors are pre-approved as sponsors #2112

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 19, 2021
Merged

PEP 1: PEP editors are pre-approved as sponsors #2112

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 19, 2021

Conversation

gvanrossum
Copy link
Member

@gvanrossum gvanrossum requested a review from warsaw October 18, 2021 23:58
@gvanrossum gvanrossum requested a review from ncoghlan as a code owner October 18, 2021 23:58
@gvanrossum gvanrossum mentioned this pull request Oct 18, 2021
Closed
@JelleZijlstra
Copy link
Member

The SC wasn't really explicit in the linked issue about whether they were OK with me as a sponsor in this particular case or whether they agree on the general principle, so let's leave this for @warsaw to confirm it's what they want.

@warsaw
Copy link
Member

warsaw commented Oct 19, 2021

PR 2112 🤘

@warsaw warsaw merged commit 56904fc into master Oct 19, 2021
@warsaw warsaw deleted the pep-1-sponsors branch October 19, 2021 01:25
@warsaw
Copy link
Member

warsaw commented Oct 19, 2021

@JelleZijlstra Yes, we are okay with you being a sponsor in this particular case. Hopefully this PR clarifies the general case now too.

@gvanrossum
Copy link
Member Author

@JelleZijlstra

The SC wasn't really explicit in the linked issue about whether they were OK with me as a sponsor in this particular case or whether they agree on the general principle, so let's leave this for @warsaw to confirm it's what they want.

This comment in the original thread looks pretty unambiguous -- they were okay with you (Jelle) being sponsor on a specific PEP. As Barry repeated above. Fortunately they are now also okay with the general case. Congrats!

(Now I'm looking forward to the actual PEP, which is about using +T or -T as a way to use a TypeVar in a covariant or contravariant position; I haven't heard much about it since that thread was started.)

@jorenham
Copy link

@gvanrossum You can find the current version at jorenham#2, any feedback is welcome :)

@erlend-aasland erlend-aasland mentioned this pull request May 13, 2022
Closed
@erlend-aasland erlend-aasland mentioned this pull request Jun 27, 2022
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@goodger goodger goodger approved these changes

@warsaw warsaw warsaw approved these changes

@ncoghlan ncoghlan Awaiting requested review from ncoghlan

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
CLA signed
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@gvanrossum @JelleZijlstra @warsaw @jorenham @goodger @the-knights-who-say-ni