OK. I see enough voices in the discussion to assume this is a good direction, let me start a lazy consensus on that one and prepare a PR where the simplifications will be more visible.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2025 at 11:16 AM Pierre Jeambrun <pierrejb...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Sun 23 Mar 2025 at 09:41, Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 6:11 PM Shahar Epstein <sha...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > +1 from me - uv is a great tool, improves developer experience, and it > is > > > well-supported. > > > While acknowledging the licensing issues that you mentioned - if > > migration > > > from the current dual license ever happens, I assume that we'll be able > > to > > > find solutions for that. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 11:51 PM 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. > > > > > > > > > >
