On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 19:52, Michael Merickel <mmeri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think it's far-fetched to start thinking pip is legacy. Pipfile has had a > goal from day 1 to be a format that pip would support. PEP 582 is a path > forward here for providing a default location for a virtualenv [2] - it's > just that everything moves slower in pip because it supports more use-cases > than a tool like pipenv.
I don't think anyone's even spoken to the pip maintainers (yet?) about supporting the pipfile format. And no-one from the pip team has ever said that we're retiring pip in favour of pipenv. At one point, I think there was a lot of rhetoric around pipenv, but IMO it was just that, rhetoric. I'm not sure where the "everything moves slower in pip" comment comes from - pip's moving at a fair pace. I've no feel for how fast pipenv is moving (although for the parts where they use pip, they are "obviously" going to move faster in some sense, because they can use all the changes in pip and add their own :-)) > What started out as a reference implementation has definitely taken on a life > of its own of course and it's up to PyPA to manage that relationship and > offer a good story around the tooling it's building. As far as I'm concerned, pip and pipenv are different tools, supporting different use cases. I don't know enough about pipenv to say much more than that. The "official PyPA position" (if that's a thing, and if it's what someone is after) is probably at https://packaging.python.org/ and that document describes pip in the "Installing Packages" section, and pipenv under "Managing Application Dependencies". To me, that's a pretty clear distinction. Paul -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/TXQQUXPT4FRV2YI5TPTO5PCGBF3OAYZ3/
