I'm mostly indifferent to whether the packaging code lives in another
repo. Anyone else have an opinion?
-=Bill
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Jake Farrell jfarr...@apache.org wrote:
Going back to the 0.9.0 example, if I checkout the 0.9.0 tag it will always
have a broken
I propose a simplification of the Python BUILD layout as follows and a set
of new conventions, as follows:
1) 1 BUILD per 3rd level directory. These are currently
```
% find src/main/python -maxdepth 3 -mindepth 3 -type d |while read dirname;
do echo $dirname | sed
+1
-=Bill
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Kevin Sweeney kswee...@twitter.com.invalid
wrote:
Somewhat complementary work - this change would make the generated packages
equivalent to the ultimate goal of replacing these top-level BUILD files
directly with setup.py files. Users could begin
We've talked in the past about switching build tools. Just to keep that in
context - how would you weigh this effort against a tool change?
-=Bill
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Kevin Sweeney kevi...@apache.org wrote:
I propose a simplification of the Python BUILD layout as follows and a
Posted https://reviews.apache.org/r/36972/ for feedback.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Bill Farner wfar...@apache.org wrote:
+1
-=Bill
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Kevin Sweeney
kswee...@twitter.com.invalid
wrote:
Somewhat complementary work - this change would make the
Somewhat complementary work - this change would make the generated packages
equivalent to the ultimate goal of replacing these top-level BUILD files
directly with setup.py files. Users could begin testing deployment with the
pants-generated sdists and seamlessly drop in setup.py-generated
