[please see http://bugs.debian.org/163703]

The bug submitter complains, that the information found
in accepted PEPs like 252 and 253 cannot be found in
the "standard documentation" and proposes, that
accepted PEPs are included in the standard documentation.

Logged In: YES 
user_id=31392

I don't think PEPs themselves should be included in the
documentation, but the relevant spec info should go into the
docs in an appropriate location.  I think leaving the
rationale/discussion part in the PEP is good.

Logged In: YES 
user_id=60903

Ok, changed the summary line.

Logged In: YES 
user_id=31392

Well it's not a question of cutting and pasting the spec 
part of a PEP into the reference manual.  The documentation 
changes, particularly for PEPs 252 and 253, are fairly 
substantial and involve a lot more than moving some text 
around.  (I'd wager that what counts as standard features 
and what is experimental isn't entirely clear.)

To sum up, I don't think there's much point keeping a bug 
report open for this unless there are a specific set of 
PEPs with tractable documentation to move around.

Logged In: YES 
user_id=3066

I agree with Jeremy.  If something is described in a PEP and
implemented, documentation is necessary.  For each such
case, a separate documentation bug should be filed.  This is
especially valuable since I don't have time to follow PEP
development these days.  Specific bug reports would be very
helpful, and can get things moving a little quicker.  Such a
report should include:

- what isn't documented
- where you think documentation should be added (possibly
multiple locations)
- what the documentation should say (a reference to a PEP,
email message, or a patch would all be good), if possible.

I'm closing this report and anxiously awaiting a deluge of
very specific and helpful reports.  Thanks, Volunteer
Matthias!  ;-)

I reported issue 15029 [1] which may be related to this one.

[1] http://bugs.python.org/issue15029