On 29 June 2016 at 10:38, Ralf Gommers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:16 AM, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On 26 Jun 2016 23:37, "Pradyun Gedam" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hello List! >> > >> > I feel it’s fine to hold back the other changes for later but the >> > upgrade-strategy change should get shipped out to the world as quickly >> > as >> > possible. Even how the change is exposed the user can also be discussed >> > later. >> > >> > I request the list members to focus on only the change of the default >> > upgrade strategy to be non-eager. >> > >> > Does anyone have any concerns regarding the change of the default >> > upgrade >> > strategy to be non-eager? If not, let’s get just that shipped out as >> > soon as possible. >> >> Pairing that change with an explicit "pip upgrade-all" command would get a >> +1 from me, especially if there was a printed warning when the new upgrade >> strategy skips packages the old one would have updated. > > Please do not mix upgrade with upgrade-all. The latter is blocked by lack of > a SAT solver for a long time, and at the current pace that status may not > change for another couple of years. Also mixing these up is unnecessary, and > it was discussed last year on this list already to move ahead with upgrade: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.distutils.devel/24219
I realise the consensus on the ticket is that its blocked, but I don't actually agree. Yes, you can't do it *right* without a full resolver, but you can do an approximation that would be a lot better than nothing (just narrow the specifiers given across all requirements). That is actually reasonable when you're dealing with a presumed-good-set of versions (which install doesn't deal with). -Rob _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
