| opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/releases master: nova: Release 2024.1 Caracal 29.3.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/958009 | 05:20 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/releases master: nova: Release 2025.1 Epoxy 31.1.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/957951 | 05:24 |
| *** clarkb is now known as Guest24535 | 11:02 | |
| opendevreview | Dr. Jens Harbott proposed openstack/releases master: EOL for monacsa unmaintained branches https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/958076 | 12:55 |
| frickler | gouthamr: ^^ I had a moment and just ran "new-release antelope $i eol" for all monasca repos to generate that | 12:57 |
| opendevreview | Andriy Kurilin proposed openstack/releases master: Release Rally 5.0.0 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/958097 | 15:25 |
| opendevreview | Tim Burke proposed openstack/releases master: Transition unmaintained Swift branches to eol https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/958101 | 16:20 |
| *** Guest24535 is now known as clarkb | 16:25 | |
| opendevreview | Tim Burke proposed openstack/releases master: Transition unmaintained Swift branches to eol https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/958101 | 16:34 |
| opendevreview | Dr. Jens Harbott proposed openstack/releases master: EOL for monacsa unmaintained branches https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/958076 | 16:55 |
| andreykurilin | Hi folks! Do you have any plans/thoughts regarding support for "setup.py"-free projects? I mean repos that want to switch to pyproject.toml with setuptools-scm. Any objections? | 18:22 |
| clarkb | this is probably most a question of "what does PBR provide that setuptools scm does not?" | 18:23 |
| clarkb | you can already use pyproject.toml with pbr. You currently need a minimal setup.py file (but its very minimal) and the plan is to eventually make that not necessary | 18:24 |
| clarkb | so you can already do 95% of this with the existing tools. Then if you want to drop pbr that introduces the question of what is lost. | 18:24 |
| clarkb | PBR records the git sha of the commit that is checked out when producing the package (I don't know of any other tools recording that info). PBR also auto generates version numbers based on the git repo state. It accounts for the most recent tag and any subsequent version bump annotations in the commit message (I think you can get automatic tag based versioning from other | 18:26 |
| clarkb | tools but not the automatic version bumps from previous tags) | 18:26 |
| clarkb | I want to say the openstack release team does currently rely on that functionality at least in some cases | 18:26 |
| clarkb | then there are some more tertiary functions like automated authors file generation, minimal cli script installations (that don't use entrypoints which are slow), the wsgi script support (whcih may need to go away due to changes in setuptools I don't think we've decided if that is the case yet) | 18:27 |
| clarkb | fungi and stephenfin probably have more thoughts | 18:27 |
| clarkb | as a side note: setuptools-scm still uses a setup.py with setuptools and pyproject.yaml aiui. Its just that it may be autogenerated for you. The autogenerated setup.py doesn't work with pbr which is why we need to continue to supply a minimal version | 18:29 |
| andreykurilin | setuptools-scm also relies on the tags, similar to pbr. But not sure that it can get any extra instructions from commit message. Auto generation of authors is also not supported. | 18:30 |
| fungi | andreykurilin: that's basically it. setuptools-scm does a lot of what pbr does, though not everything. but also the longer-term plan is to make it possible to use pbr with just a pyproject.toml file and no setup.py or setup.cfg at all | 18:30 |
| fungi | pbr also tests with much older python and setuptools versions so that its latest versions can be used across older stable branches of projects | 18:30 |
| andreykurilin | Just for the context - my initial question came from desire to get rid of setup.py file completely. I managed to do it with setuptools-scm, but releases tooling disliked this :) | 18:31 |
| fungi | but a lot of newer packaging features will need python 3.9 or newer since the required support in setuptools didn't appear until versions that don't work with older python versions than that | 18:31 |
| clarkb | I guess my question would be "why?" it doesn't hurt anything to ahve it with or without setuptools-scm or pbr | 18:31 |
| clarkb | you're right that it isn't always strictly necessary in all cases. But having a minimal setup.py that tells setuptools to use pbr shouldn't be a problem | 18:32 |
| andreykurilin | Less files - cleaner look of the repo :) not a strong argument, agree | 18:32 |
| fungi | andreykurilin: the pbr docs include examples of very minimal setup.py and setup.cfg files needed in conjunction with pyproject.toml for now, you can put basically everything in pyproject.toml already | 18:32 |
| fungi | but yes, it's acknowledged that it would be nice to be able to get rid of those completely and that's the plan, it's just that hooking into setuptools without them is complicated, especially while continuing to maintain support for very old python and setuptools at the same time | 18:33 |
| fungi | https://docs.openstack.org/pbr/latest/user/using.html#pyproject-toml | 18:35 |
| andreykurilin | ok, thank you for quick answers and your awesome job! I think I have everything to make it work for “my” repos. | 18:36 |
| andreykurilin | Dummy setup.[cfg/py] files look simple enough, so see no problems with that | 18:37 |
| clarkb | right you can drive basically all of the configuration via pyproject.toml. The other bits are just there to plumb things together until there is a better way | 18:39 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!