> Do you think you'd be able to summarise the conclusions from this
> thread on the pip issue that prompted it? It would be nice if we could
> record it over there for people who are following the tracker issue,
> and an explanation from an "affected user" perspective may be more
> helpful to
Thank you all for very helpful comments!
I've carefully considered everything you said and I'm now mostly convinced,
that PEP 508 actually doesn't need to be expanded to include version
specifiers. Sure, if it would, some workflows will continue to work more or
less as they were. But it's not
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> So URL specifiers replaced the part of dependency links that we
> actually wanted to keep: letting projects *temporarily* depend on VCS
> repos and other URLs while waiting for a release containing the
> feature that they needed, while focusing on abstract dependencies
>
Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 09:20, Tzu-ping Chung > I’m wondering, why is it needed to specify both a version and a link? I
> > assume the
> > version specifier would be redundant when a link is provided as the source,
> > since the link
> > can only point to one possible
Paul Moore wrote:
> Maybe the way to define useful semantics here would be to articulate
> the actual problem you're trying to solve (*without* referring to how
> dependency_links works) and propose a semantics that solves that
> problem?
Lets say that have project A, that has requirements B and
ble? I think so, but
maybe it should be specified in the PEP as well?
What do you think? I've never proposed any PEP update before, so there may be
some procedures I'm missing. If so, please point me in the right direction.
Kind regards,
Jan Musílek
[1] https://github.com/pypa/pip/issue
