I am not having any strong objections to any of the decision take here, solely because this won't be an user facing change
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 7:07 AM Alexander Shorin <[email protected]> wrote: > I share Andrey's skepticism. It's just yet another tool which has an > unclear development strategy. Should you make it a free testing suite? What > project would receive in exchange? A lot of words about being faster, but > how much? Are these milliseconds worth to change the stable tool with a new > one? And will it notably improve something? > > I think it's worth to try it just for fun and provide feedback, but it'll > have to pass a long road to become such stable as pip. > > -- > ,,,^..^,,, > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 3:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > My opinion: > > > > I think there is a place for a number of such tools. For a long time the > > packaging team and `pip` team have been working not only on `pip` > > implementation but also (and most importantly) to make sure that what > `pip` > > does is to be the beacon of standardisation of packaging APIs and PEPs. > It > > will never IMHO have a lot of the fancy features that other tools might > > provide (like the ones I mentioned). It will always be there to provide > the > > robust and solid CLI to run all packaging things, but there are plenty of > > opportunities to provide improved or modified, or more (or less) > > opinionated ways of doing things that are addressing some cases that > `pip` > > team simply will not be able or willing to handle, preferring "pure" > > standard approach vs. implement all the optional things. For example the > > way how pre-releases are handled can be improved to be more selective. > The > > PEP describing it gives the tools an option to add more fancy behaviours > > (some of which we could find useful in our CI tooling). Should `pip` > > implement those - I don't think so. It would distract maintainers from > > other more important things. It is quite ok to use other tooling in > places > > like our CI, where they do some parts of the installation better. > > > > For me `pip` is going more into the direction of `usable reference > > implementation of package installed` - any standard/ PEP will not matter > if > > `pip` does not implement it. But others might go in different directions > > and implement some less popular features and do it better, faster, with > > greater flexibility. IMHO it's a win-win. > > > > J. > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 11:40 PM Andrey Anshin <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > Yesterday my friend shared with me that tool and I've been told that > more > > > presumably it would be a niche tool. I've been told "who needs yet > > another > > > installer which stands to resolve all your problems' '. > > > I guess I was wrong? > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 00:53, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey everyone, > > > > > > > > Few days ago the ruff creators have released a new tool uv - which is > > an > > > > extremely fast (written in rust) and fully featured tool generally > > fully > > > > compatible with `pip`. > > > > > > > > Blog post here: https://astral.sh/blog/uv > > > > > > > > It looks like It has a number of things that would make our CI cases > > and > > > > tooling quite a bit faster and better including a few things that I > > have > > > > implemented some workarounds for and some that I have not > > > > implemented because `pip` had no good solution. > > > > > > > > I looked at the docs and it solves some problems that are currently > > > > difficult or impossible to handle with `pip`: > > > > > > > > * ability to use overrides (which are constraints on steroids - > > allowing > > > to > > > > override limits specified by the packages - this will be very useful > to > > > > better handle our cases with "chicken-egg" providers (for example > like > > we > > > > had in FAB) where we have pre-release packages depending on each > other > > > > > > > > * different resolution strategies including --resolution=lowest which > > > will > > > > finally allow us to see whether airflow's lower bounds are still > > holding > > > > (i.e. - will our test still pass if we use the lowest supported > version > > > of > > > > our dependencies? this is something i wanted to do for quite some > time > > > and > > > > recorded an issue for that - > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/35549 > > > > but lack of tooling support made it a wish, with > `--resolution=lowest` > > it > > > > seems like super-easy thing to do. > > > > > > > > * It is said to be many, many times faster - with better caching and > > > > resolution speeds (similarly like with ruff they claim orders of > > > magnitude > > > > speedups in a number of cases). We can likely make very good use of > it > > > and > > > > speed up some parts of our CI workflow significantly. > > > > > > > > I might likely do some experimenting with uv in our toolchain, but > > wanted > > > > to make sure we are all aware of it - and ask if someone has > something > > > > against it (and maybe someone would like to do some work there trying > > it > > > > out - I will be happy to guide others with the dev/tooling mindset > and > > > > incline to do some changes there/review PRs and cooperate on testing > > > those > > > > things. > > > > > > > > It's not a user-facing change, and I do not think we want to get rid > of > > > > `pip` as an installation tool in general (in our images and user > facing > > > > side) - it's mostly an internal CI tooling improvement I am thinking > > of. > > > > Maybe at some point in time we can recommend it also for development > > > > workflows, and maybe someday it will gain enough popularity to think > > > about > > > > recommending it to our users, but definitely not now nor in even > > mid-term > > > > future. > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > > > > > Repo here: https://github.com/astral-sh/uv > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > >
