Also one more important point - if we drop `pip` support - we will be able to rely on `uv.lock` for constraint generation. Currently we have our own mechanism of updating the constraint files, but if we go "full-in" with `uv` - we should be able to use `uv.lock` for this purpose. It means that we will be able to commit `uv.lock` (currently it's .gitignored and everyone has its own uv.lock file).
As of two weeks or so apparently dependabot supports uv https://github.blog/changelog/2025-03-13-dependabot-version-updates-now-support-uv-in-general-availability/ though I am not sure if this is full support ( https://docs.astral.sh/uv/guides/integration/dependency-bots/#uvlock-output mentions that it is work in progress and the issue https://github.com/dependabot/dependabot-core/issues/10478 mentioned there is still open). Once we go "full-in" with `uv` and have full support for `uv.lock` upgrade with dependabot, we will be able to replace the current "canary auto-upgrade" with "Dependabot PR upgrade" mechanism, which should allow us to remove a lot of custom code I wrote and will allow to have more "controlled" upgrades (say daily PR to upgrade deps). But details for that is another discussion. J. On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 7:44 AM Kunal Bhattacharya <kunal.ju...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 on dropping pip support and have simplified dependency management with > uv. > > I agree that managing both is complicated and the quick start docs to > navigate either uv or pip is not the easiest to follow through. I strongly > believe the setup will be orders of magnitude easier to follow along with > just uv. > > Regards, > Kunal Bhattacharya > > On Sat, 22 Mar 2025, 03:20 Jarek Potiuk, <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > Hello here, > > > > Following the "airflow-core" move I would like to ask what others think > > about dropping `pip` as a way to set-up your local dev environment and > > leaving only `uv`. > > > > *Context: * > > > > The `uv` tool from https://astral.sh/ is built in ruff and the way they > > approached python dev environments is inspired by rust cargo. I.e "one > tool > > to do it all". > > > > The uv tool does this: > > > > * automatically installs python when needed > > * automatically creates venv when needed > > * automatically syncs venv with your project dependencies when needed > > * supports workspaces - i.e. multiple python projects in a single repo, > > which is something we started to use extensively recently and culminated > > with airflow-core separation > > > > This is all cool, and based mostly on implementing the standards agreed > by > > the Python Packaging team (https://peps.python.org/topic/packaging/) - > > which means that we do not force our users and developers to use certain > > tools, as long as they follow standards. One can use pip, poetry, hatch, > > uv, flit and a number of others as a front-end client to install and > manage > > their local environment. > > > > This however breaks a bit with workspaces and dependency groups and lock > > files: > > > > * dependency groups (used for devel/ test dependencies) is already > approved > > https://peps.python.org/pep-0735/ but not implemented by `pip` yet (next > > version 25.1 will support it) > > > > * workspaces do not have a PEP proposal yet. Different tools implement > them > > in different ways - I work with Ofek, Hatch creator and he has his own > > ideas and implementations, currently uv's workspaces (modelled after the > > needs of ours) are working very well for us > > > > * uv.lock is an incarnation (by uv) of https://peps.python.org/pep-0751/ > > which is currently draft but there is a rumour it will be approved soon > and > > uv team is committed to support the PEP > > > > *Problem:* > > > > Currently, a number of decisions in our build/packaging files are > > supporting the "generic" support. Everything we do (including workspace > > installation) should be possible with `uv` > > but we also have `pip` equivalent of it (for example you have a sequence > of > > `pip install -e` commands that you can run to get the same result as `uv > > sync`). And it costs a bit - hatch_build.py in the root of Airflow is > > unnecessarily complex to support it (with dynamic pre-installed packages > > and some other dynamic code. We could get rid of it and replace the > dynamic > > stuff with static pyproject.toml in the root folder if we do not care > about > > `pip` installation for development. It would also simplify "quick start" > > docs if we only support `uv` with workspaces. > > > > The problem with `uv` is that it's an open-source, but privately > controlled > > (astral.sh) by a VC-backed company. We know (personally) and like the > > people behind `uv`, but at some future point in time, the ownership and > > change of control might turn astral into not-that-open-source-friendly > > (this is in a stark contrast with `pip`, `hatch`, `flit` - which are part > > of the Python Software Foundation and under the Python Packaging > Authority > > working group. > > > > *Concerns* > > > > I personally have some reservations against exclusively supporting `uv`, > > but I recognise that it makes our packaging unnecessarily complex if we > > continue to support other workflows. It's great DevEX, fantastic > > "Contributor Journey Optimisation" with `uv`. > > > > The risks, however, are small. If anything happens with `astral` - they > > licence it with Apache 2 and MIT dual licensing, we - or anyone else - > > could fork it as it happened with multiple other projects in the past > > including Akka -> Pekko, Terraform -> OpenTofu and numerous others. > > > > And it does not affect our users. Packages published from us are > > installable with anything (including pip, hatch, flit) because we follow > > standards, it's only about the dev tooling. And - if all things fail, we > > can always redevelop our own "glue" (like we already do in breeze) to > allow > > workspace or dependency groups to be easily usable. > > > > *Proposal* > > > > My proposal - for the sake of simplicity, better contributor's journey - > > for now to drop `pip` support and have `uv` as the only supported dev > > tooling. That would allow us to simplify docs and tooling support. > > > > I would love to hear what others think about it. > > > > J. > > >
