added a comment, thanks for the PR! On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 1:30 PM Yong Zheng <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > > > > > > > > > >
