You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
SPECs are shared recommendations, not compliance standards. They aim to reduce maintainer burden, and projects can adapt them to their users, technical constraints, and available resources.
Recent discussions suggest we should make this flexibility explicit in each SPEC, not just in the process documentation. I propose:
We should start recommending project-level adoption declarations / documentation.
Long-term we may want to create something more formal that could support tooling.
For example, a .sp-specs directory containing specific implementation details for SPEC 0 in a .sp-specs/spec0.md.
For now, I am imagining something more lightweight see #442.
For example, a top-level SPEC_ADOPTION.md containing:
# SPEC adoptionhttps://scientific-python.org/specs/## SPEC 0
Status: Adapted
We use SPEC 0 as the default basis for dependency-support decisions, with these variations:
1. Python versions are supported through upstream EOL.
2. Core dependencies normally follow the SPEC 0 schedule.
These choices are reviewed when release or maintenance conditions change.
## SPEC 8
Status: Adopted
Activity
jarrodmillman commentedon Oct 12, 2026
We should start recommending project-level adoption declarations / documentation.
Long-term we may want to create something more formal that could support tooling.
For example, a
.sp-specsdirectory containing specific implementation details for SPEC 0 in a.sp-specs/spec0.md.For now, I am imagining something more lightweight see #442.
For example, a top-level
SPEC_ADOPTION.mdcontaining:lucascolley commentedon Oct 12, 2026
+1 for the broad plan!