ted about this speed up as well as our CI :)
>>
>> ____
>> From: Jarek Potiuk
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 2:44:14 AM
>> To: dev@airflow.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL EXTERNE] [DISCUSS] Considering trying
;
> From: Jarek Potiuk
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 2:44:14 AM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL EXTERNE] [DISCUSS] Considering trying
> out uv for our CI workflows
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from
p as well as our CI :)
From: Jarek Potiuk
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 2:44:14 AM
To: dev@airflow.apache.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL EXTERNE] [DISCUSS] Considering trying out uv
for our CI workflows
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
Summarising where we are:
After ~24 hrs of operations, it looks really cool and fulfills (and
actually exceeds) all my expectations.
* Multiple PRs succeeded, we got quite a few constraints updated
automatically after successful canary runs:
gt; From: Jarek Potiuk
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 7:45 AM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Considering trying out uv for our CI workflows
>
> And merged. I will keep an eye on it for the next few days.
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:47 AM Jarek Potiuk
: Jarek Potiuk
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 7:45 AM
To: dev@airflow.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Considering trying out uv for our CI workflows
And merged. I will keep an eye on it for the next few days.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:47 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Yes. The difference was becau
t;> Tel. +49 711 811-91508 | Mobil +49 160 90417410 |
>> jens.scheff...@de.bosch.com
>>
>> Sitz: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 14000;
>> Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Stefan Asenkerschbaumer;
>> Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Hartung, Dr. Ch
r. Stefan Hartung, Dr. Christian Fischer, Dr. Markus
> Forschner,
> Stefan Grosch, Dr. Markus Heyn, Dr. Frank Meyer, Dr. Tanja Rückert
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jarek Potiuk
> Sent: Montag, 26. Februar 2024 08:54
> To: Amogh Desai
> Cc: dev@airflow.apache.org
>
s
Forschner,
Stefan Grosch, Dr. Markus Heyn, Dr. Frank Meyer, Dr. Tanja Rückert
-Original Message-
From: Jarek Potiuk
Sent: Montag, 26. Februar 2024 08:54
To: Amogh Desai
Cc: dev@airflow.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Considering trying out uv for our CI workflows
Yep. It all looks g
; >
>> >> > 1) Regular builds with no dependency changes: pip.~ 1m , uv ~ 1m
>> >> > (because we are using docker layer caching and pip resolution and
>> >> > installation is not used at all)
>> >> > 2) Updating dependencies: 8m wit
numbers hold and the resolution quality will be comparable to
> >> > `pip` - then well, it's definitely worth it - and the numbers are very
> >> > close to what the `uv` authors claimed.
> >> >
> >> > I am impressed :)
> >> >
> &g
h Niko here.
>> > >
>> > > If someone is willing to give it a try, we should enable it
>> > experimentally
>> > > and give it a stint for a couple of weeks. If we see significant
>> results,
>> > > we can adopt it.
>> > >
>>
rote:
> > >
> > > > The Astral folks also seem very focused on it being a
> drop-in/compliant
> > > > replacement for pip. So I think it's definitely worth dropping it in
> > and
> > > > seeing if we get the expected performance improvements. If tests
>
improvements. If tests still
> > pass
> > > and user facing constraints and install instructions remain unchanged I
> > > don't see why not, if someone is willing to spend the time on it. Never
> > > mind the extra features it would give us (I, like others, am also very
> > > excited
>> > mind the extra features it would give us (I, like others, am also very
>> > excited about --resolution=lowest, ability).
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Andrey Anshin
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 12:26:56 AM
>
, February 20, 2024 12:26:56 AM
> > To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL EXTERNE] [DISCUSS] Considering trying
> > out uv for our CI workflows
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > click links or op
bruary 20, 2024 12:26:56 AM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL EXTERNE] [DISCUSS] Considering trying
> out uv for our CI workflows
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless yo
@airflow.apache.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL EXTERNE] [DISCUSS] Considering trying out uv
for our CI workflows
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the
content is safe
> I share Andrey's skepticism. It's just yet another tool which has an unclear
development strategy.
My point was more about a matter of presentation. If someone told you "this
is a new tool, like a killer of previous tools" then you might think
"Yeah...yeah...yeah.. yet another replacement to
I can definitely see benefits and I would be in favour of using it in our
CI jobs, allowing for faster and more robust pipeline (alternative
resolution etc…)
As Jarek mentioned, it is not aimed to be a user facing change, just
internal to make things easier. We have cases (Sbom generation for
Actually - of you read that blog post, the strategy is clear - they aim to
create a comprehensive packaging tooling and improvnts are measured (80-100
times they claim - I using caching - they (unlike pip) use a lot of local
caching including resolving dependencies).
So I think both arguments
I am not having any strong objections to any of the decision take here,
solely
because this won't be an user facing change
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 7:07 AM Alexander Shorin wrote:
> I share Andrey's skepticism. It's just yet another tool which has an
> unclear development strategy. Should you
I share Andrey's skepticism. It's just yet another tool which has an
unclear development strategy. Should you make it a free testing suite? What
project would receive in exchange? A lot of words about being faster, but
how much? Are these milliseconds worth to change the stable tool with a new
My opinion:
I think there is a place for a number of such tools. For a long time the
packaging team and `pip` team have been working not only on `pip`
implementation but also (and most importantly) to make sure that what `pip`
does is to be the beacon of standardisation of packaging APIs and
Yesterday my friend shared with me that tool and I've been told that more
presumably it would be a niche tool. I've been told "who needs yet another
installer which stands to resolve all your problems' '.
I guess I was wrong?
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 00:53, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
>
Hey everyone,
Few days ago the ruff creators have released a new tool uv - which is an
extremely fast (written in rust) and fully featured tool generally fully
compatible with `pip`.
Blog post here: https://astral.sh/blog/uv
It looks like It has a number of things that would make our CI cases
26 matches
Mail list logo
