PEP 803: Stable ABI for Free-Threaded Builds

[encukou]

Basic requirements (all PEP Types)

• Read and followed PEP 1 & PEP 12
• File created from the latest PEP template (almost)
• 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--4556.org.readthedocs.build/

[JelleZijlstra]

Looks good, some small comment.

[willingc]

Thanks @encukou. I've made a few readability suggestions.

[encukou]

Thank you for the reviews!

Sometimes I have reasons for a particular wording, and copy editing helps make the nuances stand out :)

[encukou]

@AA-Turner, are you working on a review?

[AA-Turner]

Yes, sorry for the delay. I've been unexpectedly busy, should have it finished by Thursday.

A

[encukou]

Please send what you have, or leave it for the next round. I'd like to publish the PEP next week.

[AA-Turner]

Sorry for the delay Petr, I've written up the notes I had & done a brief editorial/style pass.

A

[encukou]

Thank you for the review! I do appreciate it, but I worry that we're getting diminishing returns from copy-editing this version. After all, the whole thing might get rewritten after the discussion.

[encukou]

I'm not sure about the workflow here: Merging is blocked until all comments must be resolved.
Should I mark them as resolved if you gave a thumbs-up? Or if I don't think I should act on the suggestion?

[AA-Turner]

I didn't realise the comments hadn't been resolved, sorry. Two replies but non-blocking.

A

[encukou]

Thank you for the thoughtful reviews!