Re: pip for stretch

On Nov 28, 2016, at 01:56 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >I'm starting to work on pip 9.0.1 but noticed two new dependencies. appdirs >1.4.0 we have, but distro 1.0.1 we don't. It doesn't look like there's an ITP >for that, so I'll file that bug. Okay, as soon as python-distro clears new, I'll upload

Re: pip for stretch

On Nov 21, 2016, at 06:37 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: >As one might expect, I would prefer it if folks got 9.0.1 as quickly as >possible. In particular the feature that makes it easier for upstreams to >drop Python 2 support is one that is really only effective when people can >consider pip 9 a

Re: pip for stretch

Donald Stufft: >> >> On Nov 21, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> >> I have not started to look at what if anything needs to be done to transition >> to pip 9, but if you have a strong opinion one way or the other, please weigh >> in. >> > > > As one might expect, I

Re: pip for stretch

On 2016-11-21 18:33:48 -0500 (-0500), Barry Warsaw wrote: [...] > I have not started to look at what if anything needs to be done to > transition to pip 9, but if you have a strong opinion one way or > the other, please weigh in. The fix to uninstall properly when replacing with an editable

Re: pip for stretch

> > On Nov 21, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > I have not started to look at what if anything needs to be done to transition > to pip 9, but if you have a strong opinion one way or the other, please weigh > in. > As one might expect, I would prefer it if folks got

pip for stretch

Now that Stretch development is winding down, and I've been doing some recent maintenance on pip, I wanted to throw this out there and see if anybody has strong opinions one way or the other. I'm considering sticking with pip 8.1.2 for Stretch, even though upstream is at 9.0.1. Here's