Re: segfault using python bindings

2018-11-16 Thread David Bremner
Floris Bruynooghe  writes:

>> As I mentioned last time this was discussed, the python bindings are
>> currently more or less a core part of notmuch as both the test
>> suite and developement need them.
>
> Sure, I think pypi publishing is orthogonal to this however.  Either or
> both versions of the bindings could be published on pypi in addition to
> being in the main repo.  As Brian mentions it would improve
> discoverability and improves integration on the python side.  There's
> even tooling to bundle the library these days with the manylinux1
> wheels.  So there's no need to stop anyone who'd like to do this.

Well, I agree with all that (and did in the previous thread too). But
the context was Florian's idea of publishing on pypi instead of/before
integrating with notmuch. That's of course his right to do, but my main
(selfish) interest is in having python bindings shipping with notmuch
that work properly with recent python3. I guess even having a separate
set of incompatible python3 only bindings would be better than the
current situation. We could just ship the two bindings in parallel,
deprecate the python2 bindings, and give people a year or so to
transition.
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: segfault using python bindings

2018-11-16 Thread Floris Bruynooghe
On Fri 16 Nov 2018 at 07:15 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:

> On Fri 2018-11-16 06:27:12 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
>> Floris Bruynooghe  writes:
>>
>>> These are at https://github.com/flub/notmuch/tree/cffi/bindings/python-cffi
>>>
>>> I'm not really convinced of the way forward last time it was discussed
>>> on how to get them merged into notmuch itself so have failed to put in
>>> the not insignificant effort.
>>>
>>> I've since wondered if just getting them standalone on pypi is perhaps a
>>> useful service in the mean time as it's relatively little effort.  And
>>> if there eventually is a desire again to get them merged in some way
>>> that could still be done.
>>
>> What effort are you referring to specifically? Integration with the
>> notmuch test suite?
>
> My recollection is that the main question was about supporting the old
> python interface with the new bindings, so that consumers would have a
> smooth upgrade path.  Is that not right?

That's indeed what I was referring to, integration with the test suite
is fine as was discussed last time imho.

> Floris, i really appreciate the work you put in here, and i'd love to
> see notmuch be able to adopt it directly.   can we figure out what is
> needed to take these changes?

Thanks.  I think mainly when the technical approach was discussed [0] no
actual users of the current Python API weighed in with if they'd be
interested in a migration of the API and if so, how it might work for
them.  So while the gradual approach described there is technically
somewhat nice I have no idea if anyone would benefit from it, or whether
the benefits outweigh all the work involved.

As I was recently thinking however, maybe there's nothing wrong with new
bindings being published as a 3rd party package on pypi.  It'd make it
more discoverable and if people start to adopt it maybe there'd be more
demand for integrating it back with more clarity over how smooth a
transition path needs to be.

Also lastly an apology.  I could have done more to move this forward,
but I simply haven't found^Wmade the time for it.

Cheers,
Floris


[0] id:py3imv2cjp28@devork.be
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: segfault using python bindings

2018-11-16 Thread Floris Bruynooghe
On Fri 16 Nov 2018 at 06:29 -0400, David Bremner wrote:

> Brian May  writes:
>
>> Floris Bruynooghe  writes:
>>
>>> I've since wondered if just getting them standalone on pypi is perhaps a
>>> useful service in the mean time as it's relatively little effort.  And
>>> if there eventually is a desire again to get them merged in some way
>>> that could still be done.
>>
>> Standalone on pypi would be my preferred option.
>>
>> It is defacto Python standard to refer to all dependancies in something
>> like requirements.txt or Pipfile from pypi.
>
> As I mentioned last time this was discussed, the python bindings are
> currently more or less a core part of notmuch as both the test
> suite and developement need them.

Sure, I think pypi publishing is orthogonal to this however.  Either or
both versions of the bindings could be published on pypi in addition to
being in the main repo.  As Brian mentions it would improve
discoverability and improves integration on the python side.  There's
even tooling to bundle the library these days with the manylinux1
wheels.  So there's no need to stop anyone who'd like to do this.
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: segfault using python bindings

2018-11-16 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On Fri 2018-11-16 06:27:12 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> Floris Bruynooghe  writes:
>
>> These are at https://github.com/flub/notmuch/tree/cffi/bindings/python-cffi
>>
>> I'm not really convinced of the way forward last time it was discussed
>> on how to get them merged into notmuch itself so have failed to put in
>> the not insignificant effort.
>>
>> I've since wondered if just getting them standalone on pypi is perhaps a
>> useful service in the mean time as it's relatively little effort.  And
>> if there eventually is a desire again to get them merged in some way
>> that could still be done.
>
> What effort are you referring to specifically? Integration with the
> notmuch test suite?

My recollection is that the main question was about supporting the old
python interface with the new bindings, so that consumers would have a
smooth upgrade path.  Is that not right?

Floris, i really appreciate the work you put in here, and i'd love to
see notmuch be able to adopt it directly.   can we figure out what is
needed to take these changes?

   --dkg


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: segfault using python bindings

2018-11-16 Thread David Bremner
Brian May  writes:

> Floris Bruynooghe  writes:
>
>> I've since wondered if just getting them standalone on pypi is perhaps a
>> useful service in the mean time as it's relatively little effort.  And
>> if there eventually is a desire again to get them merged in some way
>> that could still be done.
>
> Standalone on pypi would be my preferred option.
>
> It is defacto Python standard to refer to all dependancies in something
> like requirements.txt or Pipfile from pypi.

As I mentioned last time this was discussed, the python bindings are
currently more or less a core part of notmuch as both the test
suite and developement need them.

d
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: segfault using python bindings

2018-11-16 Thread David Bremner
Floris Bruynooghe  writes:

>
> These are at https://github.com/flub/notmuch/tree/cffi/bindings/python-cffi
>
> I'm not really convinced of the way forward last time it was discussed
> on how to get them merged into notmuch itself so have failed to put in
> the not insignificant effort.
>
> I've since wondered if just getting them standalone on pypi is perhaps a
> useful service in the mean time as it's relatively little effort.  And
> if there eventually is a desire again to get them merged in some way
> that could still be done.
>

What effort are you referring to specifically? Integration with the
notmuch test suite?
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch