On Fri, 2024-06-14 at 23:16 +0200, Étienne Mollier wrote: > Hi Diane, Hi Julian > > I'm wrapping up that email as it seems to me there could be some > activity on the dask package from several people at once.
Yeah I saw that and decided I was overloaded and stopped doing anything. Historically it was pretty important to dask and dask.distributed to be released together, upstream intends them to be matching versions, but I didn't know how to set the the dependnecy version strings to require that. > > I happen to have a look at the dask.dataframe import issues, > which manifest as at least #1068422, #1069821, and #1069359. > The import problem looks fixed in 2024.5.2, but the new version > also introduced a couple of issues: > > * the following change[1] is needed to fix a test failure[2]. > > [1]: https://github.com/dask/dask/pull/11177 > [2]: https://github.com/dask/dask/issues/11176 > > * dask.distributed failed its supposedly flaky autopkgtest > with an error which suggests the two packages might have to > be uploaded in a lockstep: Yes very much yes. Is there a way to nag anyone trying to upload dask to go check the harder to update distributed before uploading? > > If that helps, I have the package upgrade staging on my drive, > and may push to salsa after a good night of sleep. In case you > see reasons I missed for not bumping version too soon, or if you > already went through the upgrade steps already, don't hesitate > to tell me to hold my horses. That all seems promising to me. > > I did not focus a lot on the sphinxdoc issue described in the > newly opened #1073183. I'm not very good with dealing with > sphinxdoc, and would be more tempted to copy the bare rst files > than getting the html files back on tracks. > If you want to push what you've done I might have time sunday night/ monday to look at the sphinx problem. Dask is probably complicated enough to be a good candidate for team maintenance. Diane
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
