-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 249
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
Release 1.1.0a7 #289
Merged
Merged
Release 1.1.0a7 #289
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a reason why the naming pattern is changed? And why is it changed here, but not in
__init__.py?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good point 👍 I bumped the version via
poetry versionand this uses SemVer nomenclature in the pyproject.toml. I guess this was done before manually.I've change the
__init__.pyfile to read the version now via importlib. So we can avoid duplicate places for the version number.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hm, seems to be problematic, because poetry-core needs to build itself. Will revert it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, but both "versions" should at least be equal, shouldn't they?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Jaein :) Within the
__init__.pyfile the version should follow PEP 440. When poetry installs the package it translate the semver notation from the pyproject.toml into a PEP 440 compliant form. Whether poetry should create the version in the pyproject.toml in PEP 440 by default is another story, which we should discuss at some point.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While reading the part about normalization, I thought the same: "seems to be valid, just not normalized". However, the part about compatibility with semantic versioning says "Semantic versions containing a hyphen (pre-releases - clause 10) or a plus sign (builds - clause 11) are not compatible with this PEP and are not permitted in the public version field."
Maybe, versions which are not normalized are not considered PEP440 compliant but only have to be tolerated for compatibility reasons?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Or, you could avoid all this confusion by releasing plain old 1.1.0...
What is the reason for alpha releases of poetry-core? Just ship what's good now, and ship fixes / additions / changes in 1.1.1 / 1.2.0 / 2.0.0. There's no shortage of version numbers.
(Possibly a conversation for another place, but I'd encourage a poetry 1.2.0 release too... do point me at it if this is being discussed somewhere. There are lots of fixes stored up in master that are never going to get back-applied to the 1.1 branch, let's release them)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understand PEP-440 in that way that
-alpha.7is compliant in that way, that parser have to accept it, but it's not allowed to write 🤷♂️@dimbleby: I'm not sure at the moment if something is missing or to unstable to release a 1.1.0 of poetry-core. A poetry 1.2 is definitely not possible yet, because the plugin system is not enough stable.
So @python-poetry/core: Is there something that should be changed here now or can we go on releasing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's complete / stable enough to be used by
poetry- as demonstrated by its master branch. I don't see users from any other projects asking for additions or fixes.Then my suggestion would be to cut a release, but declare that the plugin system is not yet stable.
(Unless there's some work to bring that desired stability which is nearing completion, in which case it might be worth waiting for it. But I get the impression that we are likely to be waiting for some time, and it's a shame to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We discussed it whether we want to call the release 1.1.0. We decided to keep it as an alpha release until we are sure enough that there are no more big changes needed before the poetry 1.2.0 release.