On 01/10, 2018, at 03:56, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 20:50, Tzu-ping Chung <uranusjr@gmail.com> wrote:

On 01/10, 2018, at 00:47, Dan Ryan <dan@danryan.co> wrote:

Uses Pipfile as a project marker instead of pyproject.toml.

See above.  pyproject.toml wasn't standardized yet when pipenv was released (and still isn't, beyond that it is a file that could exist and store information).  Pipfile was intended to replace requirements.txt per some previous thread on the topic, and pipenv was an experimental implementation of the separation between the two different ways that people currently use requirements.txt in the wild -- one as a kind of abstract, unpinned dependency list (Pipfile),  and the other as a transitive closure (Pipfile.lock).  Since neither is standardized _for applications_, I'm not totally sure this is an actual sticking point.

In either case, this seems super minor…

I feel this would need to be extensively discussed either way before the community can
jump into a decision. The discussion I’ve seen has been quite split on whether we should
use one file or the other, but nothing very explaining why outside of “one file is better
than two”.

This discussion seems to have diverted into being about pipenv. Can I
ask that the pipenv-specific discussions be split out into a different
thread? (For example, I'm not clear if Tzu-Ping's comment here is
specific to pipenv or not).

My main reason is that (as I noted in my reply to Nathaniel's post) my
use cases are, as far as I can tell, *not* suitable for pipenv as it's
currently targeted (I'm willing to be informed otherwise, but please,
can we do it on another thread or off-list if it's not generally
useful). And I'd rather that we kept the central discussion
tool-agnostic until we come to some view on what tools we'd expect to
be suggesting to users in the various categories we end up
identifying.

Thanks,
Paul