Hey all -
I've released dogpile.cache 0.6.0. As discussed earlier in this thread,
the big change in this is that we've retired the dogpile.core package;
while that package will stay out on pypi as it is, the actual
implementation has been rolled into dogpile.cache itself and the
namespace packaging logic is removed.
In order to prevent any namespace-packaging debacles, the "dogpile.core"
path itself is no longer used internally by dogpile.cache; however the
package itself will still provide a dogpile.core import point for
applications which may have been using dogpile.core directly (this
should be very rare).
Changelog for 0.6.0 is at:
http://dogpilecache.readthedocs.io/en/latest/changelog.html#change-0.6.0
On 06/01/2016 04:54 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
Just a reminder, dogpile.cache is doing away with namespace packaging in
version 0.6.0, due for the end of this week or sometime next week.
dogpile.core is being retired and left as-is. No changes should be
needed by anyone using only dopgile.cache.
On 05/30/2016 06:17 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
Hi all -
Just a heads up what's happening for dogpile.cache, in version 0.6.0 we
are rolling the functionality of the dogpile.core package into
dogpile.cache itself, and retiring the use of namespace package naming
for dogpile.cache.
Towards retiring the use of namespace packaging, the magic
"declare_namespace() / extend_path()" logic is being removed from the
file dogpile/__init__.py from dogpile.cache, and the "namespace_package"
directive being removed from setup.py.
However, currently, the plan is to leave alone entirely the
"dogpile.core" package as is, and to no longer use the name
"dogpile.core" within dogpile.cache at all; the constructs that it
previously imported from "dogpile.core" it now just imports from
"dogpile" and "dogpile.util" from within the dogpile.cache package.
The caveat here is that Python environments that have dogpile.cache
0.5.7 or earlier installed will also have dogpile.core 0.4.1 installed
as well, and dogpile.core *does* still contain the namespace package
verbiage as before. From our testing, we don't see there being any
problem with this, however, I know there are people on this list who are
vastly more familiar than I am with namespace packaging and I would
invite them to comment on this as well as on the gerrit review [1] (the
gerrit invites anyone with a Github account to register and comment).
Note that outside of the Openstack world, there are a very small number
of applications that make use of dopgile.core directly. From our
grepping we can find no mentions of "dogpile.core" in any Openstack
requirements files. For these applications, if a Python environment
already has dogpile.core installed, this would continue to be used;
however dogpile.cache also includes a file dogpile/core.py which sets up
a compatible namespace, so that applications which list only
dogpile.cache in their requirements but make use of "dogpile.core"
constructs will continue to work as before.
I would ask that anyone reading this to please alert me to anyone, any
project, or any announcement medium which may be necessary in order to
ensure that anyone who needs to be made aware of these changes are aware
of them and have vetted them ahead of time. I would like to release
dogpile.cache 0.6.0 by the end of the week if possible. I will send
this email a few more times to the list to make sure that it is seen.
[1] https://gerrit.sqlalchemy.org/#/c/89/
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
