PEP 771: Amendments following discussion #4428
Conversation
…no default extras
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the update @astrofrog. I think you have done a great job clarifying points. I had some confusion when reading the pytest and 1500 plugins example. Otherwise, I found the changes improved clarity and understanding.
|
Thanks a lot @astrofrog for the revision. All good with me 👌 |
Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com> Co-authored-by: Pradyun Gedam <pradyunsg@gmail.com>
|
@willingc - thank you for the review, I think all the issues/suggestions you raised should be addressed. @pradyunsg - thank you for the rewording suggestion! |
|
@willingc - thank you for approving! Once this is deemed ready to merge, based on previous iterations it would be easier to merge and I can then open a new DPO thread and open a PR to add the new DPO link to the PEP. |
…] will continue to be equivalent to package.
|
@warsawnv - thanks for the review! I've implemented your suggestions/comments. |
|
Just to check, what are the next steps here - do we need @pradyunsg to approve the changes before this can be merged? |
|
I didn't review but there are enough approvals here, let's merge :) |
|
Thank you all! I'll open a new DPO thread tomorrow and will open a PR here to add the link. |
Following the initial publication of PEP 771, there has been a lot of discussion in this DPO thread. This PR makes changes to PEP 771 that hopefully addresses most of the concerns there.
The main changes are:
package[]is now considered to be the primary way to specify that a package without any default extras is being requestedpip freezeissues that might arise from PEP 771In addition to this, there are other smaller additions that aim to address some of the concerns in the DPO discussion.
Once this PR is merged, I'll then open a new discussion thread and open a trivial PR here to add the link to the PR.
cc @pradyunsg @DEKHTIARJonathan @henryiii
@willingc @hugovk @AA-Turner - just thought I'd also tag you since you were involved in the reviews of the previous iterations.
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4428.org.readthedocs.build/