> On Sep 20, 2018, at 16:30, Dan Ryan <d...@danryan.co> wrote: > > Pipenv also uses pip as mentioned several times in the thread, and > (reiterating here) the entire point of the conversation is about how both can > work together on changes. That is the thrust of the whole discussion. We are > actively using pip via its internals and pips developers (who _actively > develop pip_) would like us to an alternate approach. > > The discussion is about how to find one and then contribute it back to pip. > Nobody is discontinuing work on pip, nobody is splitting from pip, and I > would prefer if we could refrain from trying to spread this kind of > inaccurate picture.
Wait, what? How did my apparently misunderstanding of what "it's looking like things could be on track to split the user and maintainer base in two" and me explaining why I don't think all new innovation should go into pipenv suddenly turn into "spread this kind of inaccurate picture". > I know we have had unproductive conversations on the issue tracker, please > don’t bring them to the mailing list. This isn't about you, has absolutely NOTHING to do with you, don't make it about you. I am trying to contribute my thoughts back to the discussion which only is of peripherally concerned about pipenv, but is about the future of pip/package installation, and a comment that was made regarding pip becoming "legacy". You made me feel incredibly unwelcome to pipenv, I will no longer actively attempt to contribute back to that community. I have gone out of my way to stay away from any PyPA projects because of the actions and behaviours you showed on the pipenv tracker, and have actively encouraged others to do the same and look at other open source projects instead. Let us be crystal clear here, the way you and Kenneth have shown your colours on the pipenv issue tracker is a real shame and is turning off many potential contributors and good feedback to help improve pipenv. This post, right here, has re-iterated that view. Don't contact me again. > > Dan Ryan // pipenv maintainer > gh: @techalchemy > > On Sep 20, 2018, at 2:29 PM, Bert JW Regeer <xiste...@0x58.com > <mailto:xiste...@0x58.com>> wrote: > >> >> >>> On Sep 20, 2018, at 12:11, Tzu-ping Chung <uranu...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:uranu...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 21 Sep 2018, at 02:01, Bert JW Regeer <xiste...@0x58.com >>> <mailto:xiste...@0x58.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 19, 2018, at 23:22, Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdo...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:chris.jerdo...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thus, it's looking like things could be on track to split the user and >>>>> maintainer base in two, with pip bearing the legacy burden and perhaps >>>>> not seeing the improvements. Are we okay with that future? >>>> >>>> This'll be a sad day. pip is still used as an installer by other build >>>> system where using pipenv is simply not a possibility. >>> >>> I am not quite sure I understand why you’d think so. pip has been bearing >>> the legacy burden for years, and if this is the future (not saying it is), >>> it would more like just another day in the office for pip users, since >>> nothing is changing. >> >> pip not seeing any improvements is something I think will be sad. I don't >> use pipenv, but use poetry which uses pip behind the scenes to do >> installation. I also use flit. For either of those cases I would think it >> sad that pipenv splits from pip, and then developers of alternate tooling >> around building packages (but not installing) don't get new improvements >> because "pip is legacy". >> >> pipenv doesn't work in various scenarios, and trying to shoehorn it into >> those scenarios is just wrong especially since it wasn't designed to do >> those things.
-- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/BC7DTEX7VGBZ5NEAXQH2TRF7EXF3PMH3/
