Sounds good. Here is a sample PR for this change: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3410. We can wait for a bit while we get more feedback.
Thanks, Yong Zheng On 2026/01/09 01:11:04 Yufei Gu wrote: > I personally like uv a bit more due to my experience with both tools. I'm > supportive of switching to uv. We mighty give a bit more time to let people > chime in in case of compatibility issues. > > Yufei > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 4:39 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Yong, > > > > I do not have a personal opinion on python tooling, but switching to uv as > > the more performant option looks reasonable to me. > > > > Cheers, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 6:43 PM Yong Zheng <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > Currently we have 2 python based tools (polaris client and polaris mcp) > > > and they are using poetry and uv. Both poetry and uv are very popular > > > options for python package managements. Currently Polaris client is using > > > poetry while polaris mcp is using uv. I think it may makes sense to > > switch > > > with one to avoid technical debt for maintaining two package managers as > > > well as CI pipelines. Personally, I like uv more than poetry due to the > > > speed uv provides during dependencies resolutions (sample reference for > > > more detail comparison: > > > > > https://dipjyotimetia.medium.com/why-i-switched-from-poetry-to-uv-after-6-months-20d02c8f789e > > ). > > > Also, pyiceberg did the same switch couple months back: > > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/pull/2601 > > > > > > What do your guys think? Should we switch from poetry to uv or vice versa > > > or keep them as it is for now? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yong Zheng > > > > > >
