Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add PIP_COMPATIBILITY.md to document known deviations from pip #2244

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 6, 2024

Conversation

charliermarsh
Copy link
Member

Summary

Closes #2023.

@charliermarsh charliermarsh added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Mar 6, 2024
@charliermarsh
Copy link
Member Author

Still draft, missing one or two things, and need to adjust the README.

@charliermarsh charliermarsh marked this pull request as ready for review March 6, 2024 16:36
@charliermarsh
Copy link
Member Author

Okay, ready for review. The goal here is for this to something we can link to when folks have questions about sub-items in the document.

Copy link
Member

@konstin konstin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

📜 📜 📜

PIP_COMPATIBILITY.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
PIP_COMPATIBILITY.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
PIP_COMPATIBILITY.md Show resolved Hide resolved
PIP_COMPATIBILITY.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
PIP_COMPATIBILITY.md Show resolved Hide resolved
```

When uv resolutions differ from `pip` in undesirable ways, it's often a sign that the specifiers
are too loose, and that the user should consider tightening them. For example, in the case of
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd make this more concrete: Please add >= bounds to your packages.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't this clear in the example?

Copy link
Member

@zanieb zanieb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice!

dependency.

In sum, uv needs to know upfront whether the resolver should accept pre-releases for a given
package. `pip`, meanwhile, will generally respect pre-release identifiers in transitive
Copy link
Contributor

@notatallshaw notatallshaw Mar 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FYI, I expanded on this a bit here: #1641 (comment)

It's not important for uv, but certainly anything stronger than "generally" would be wrong, could even be "sometimes".

Anyway, this is great and reads well.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

PIP_COMPATIBILITY.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@charliermarsh charliermarsh enabled auto-merge (squash) March 6, 2024 21:28
@charliermarsh charliermarsh merged commit 791207c into main Mar 6, 2024
7 checks passed
@charliermarsh charliermarsh deleted the charlie/pip-compat branch March 6, 2024 21:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Formalize policy on pip compatibility
6 participants