Setuptools-Distribute merge announcement
Jason Coombs (head of the Distribute project) and I are working on merging the bulk of the improvements distribute made into the setuptools code base. He has volunteered to take over maintenance of setuptools, and I welcome his assistance. I appreciate the contributions made by the distribute maintainers over the years, and am glad to have Jason's help in getting those contributions into setuptools as well. Continuing to keep the code bases separate isn't helping anybody, and as setuptools moves once again into active development to deal with the upcoming shifts in the Python-wide packaging infrastructure (the new PEPs, formats, SSL, TUF, etc.), it makes sense to combine efforts. Aside from the problems experienced by people with one package that are fixed in the other, the biggest difficulties with the fork right now are faced by the maintainers of setuptools-driven projects like pip, virtualenv, and buildout, who have to either take sides in a conflict, or spend additional time and effort testing and integrating with both setuptools and distribute. We'd like to end that pain and simplify matters for end users by bringing distribute enhancements to setuptools and phasing out the distribute fork as soon as is practical. In the short term, our goal is to consolidate the projects to prevent duplication, wasted effort, and incompatibility, so that we can start moving forward. This merge will allow us to combine resources and teams, so that we may focus on a stable but actively-maintained toolset. In the longer term, the goal is for setuptools as a concept to become obsolete. For the first time, the Python packaging world has gotten to a point where there are PEPs *and implementations* for key parts of the packaging infrastructure that offer the potential to get rid of setuptools entirely. (Vinay Sajip's work on distlib, Daniel Holth's work on the "wheel" format, and Nick Coghlan's taking up the reins of the packaging PEPs and providing a clear vision for a new way of doing things -- these are just a few of the developments in recent play.) "Obsolete", however, doesn't mean unmaintained or undeveloped. In fact, for the "new way of doing things" to succeed, setuptools will need a lot of new features -- some small, some large -- to provide a migration path. At the moment, the merge is not yet complete. We are working on a common repository where the two projects' history has been spliced together, and are cleaning up the branch heads to facilitate re-merging them. We'd hoped to have this done by PyCon, but there have been a host of personal, health, and community issues consuming much of our available work time. But we decided to go ahead and make an announcement *now*, because with the big shifts taking place in the packaging world, there are people who need to know about the upcoming merge in order to make the best decisions about their own projects (e.g. pip, buildout, etc.) and to better support their own users. Thank you once again to all the distribute contributors, for the many fine improvements you've made to the setuptools package over the years, and I hope that you'll continue to make them in the future. (Especially as I begin to phase myself out of an active role in the project!) I now want to turn the floor over to Jason, who's put together a Roadmap/FAQ for what's going to be happening with the project going forward. We'll then both be here in the thread to address any questions or concerns you might have.
woo hoo!!! awesome!!! Marcus On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:54 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
Jason Coombs (head of the Distribute project) and I are working on merging the bulk of the improvements distribute made into the setuptools code base. He has volunteered to take over maintenance of setuptools, and I welcome his assistance. I appreciate the contributions made by the distribute maintainers over the years, and am glad to have Jason's help in getting those contributions into setuptools as well. Continuing to keep the code bases separate isn't helping anybody, and as setuptools moves once again into active development to deal with the upcoming shifts in the Python-wide packaging infrastructure (the new PEPs, formats, SSL, TUF, etc.), it makes sense to combine efforts.
Aside from the problems experienced by people with one package that are fixed in the other, the biggest difficulties with the fork right now are faced by the maintainers of setuptools-driven projects like pip, virtualenv, and buildout, who have to either take sides in a conflict, or spend additional time and effort testing and integrating with both setuptools and distribute. We'd like to end that pain and simplify matters for end users by bringing distribute enhancements to setuptools and phasing out the distribute fork as soon as is practical.
In the short term, our goal is to consolidate the projects to prevent duplication, wasted effort, and incompatibility, so that we can start moving forward. This merge will allow us to combine resources and teams, so that we may focus on a stable but actively-maintained toolset. In the longer term, the goal is for setuptools as a concept to become obsolete. For the first time, the Python packaging world has gotten to a point where there are PEPs *and implementations* for key parts of the packaging infrastructure that offer the potential to get rid of setuptools entirely. (Vinay Sajip's work on distlib, Daniel Holth's work on the "wheel" format, and Nick Coghlan's taking up the reins of the packaging PEPs and providing a clear vision for a new way of doing things -- these are just a few of the developments in recent play.)
"Obsolete", however, doesn't mean unmaintained or undeveloped. In fact, for the "new way of doing things" to succeed, setuptools will need a lot of new features -- some small, some large -- to provide a migration path.
At the moment, the merge is not yet complete. We are working on a common repository where the two projects' history has been spliced together, and are cleaning up the branch heads to facilitate re-merging them. We'd hoped to have this done by PyCon, but there have been a host of personal, health, and community issues consuming much of our available work time. But we decided to go ahead and make an announcement *now*, because with the big shifts taking place in the packaging world, there are people who need to know about the upcoming merge in order to make the best decisions about their own projects (e.g. pip, buildout, etc.) and to better support their own users.
Thank you once again to all the distribute contributors, for the many fine improvements you've made to the setuptools package over the years, and I hope that you'll continue to make them in the future. (Especially as I begin to phase myself out of an active role in the project!)
I now want to turn the floor over to Jason, who's put together a Roadmap/FAQ for what's going to be happening with the project going forward. We'll then both be here in the thread to address any questions or concerns you might have. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
On 03/13/2013 06:54 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
Jason Coombs (head of the Distribute project) and I are working on merging the bulk of the improvements distribute made into the setuptools code base. He has volunteered to take over maintenance of setuptools, and I welcome his assistance.
This merge is very good news for Python packaging. Kudos and thanks to you and Jason. This also seems like an appropriate opportunity to say: thank you for building the first working packaging system for Python (the one that all popular packaging tools are still based on), and for all the work you've put into it over the years. Carl
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net> wrote:
On 03/13/2013 06:54 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
Jason Coombs (head of the Distribute project) and I are working on merging the bulk of the improvements distribute made into the setuptools code base. He has volunteered to take over maintenance of setuptools, and I welcome his assistance.
This merge is very good news for Python packaging. Kudos and thanks to you and Jason.
This also seems like an appropriate opportunity to say: thank you for building the first working packaging system for Python (the one that all popular packaging tools are still based on), and for all the work you've put into it over the years.
Yup. Well said. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm
On 14 March 2013 00:54, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
Jason Coombs (head of the Distribute project) and I are working on merging the bulk of the improvements distribute made into the setuptools code base.
Absolutely fantastic news!!! Thanks to both Jason and PJE for making this happen. Paul
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:54 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
Jason Coombs (head of the Distribute project) and I are working on merging the bulk of the improvements distribute made into the setuptools code base. He has volunteered to take over maintenance of setuptools, and I welcome his assistance. I appreciate the contributions made by the distribute maintainers over the years, and am glad to have Jason's help in getting those contributions into setuptools as well. Continuing to keep the code bases separate isn't helping anybody, and as setuptools moves once again into active development to deal with the upcoming shifts in the Python-wide packaging infrastructure (the new PEPs, formats, SSL, TUF, etc.), it makes sense to combine efforts.
That's awesome news. Thanks Phillip and Jason! Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm
This is great news from the pip/virtualenv front. Thanks to both you for setuptools and the distribute contributors for all your work so far. Paul On 13 March 2013 20:54, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
Jason Coombs (head of the Distribute project) and I are working on merging the bulk of the improvements distribute made into the setuptools code base. He has volunteered to take over maintenance of setuptools, and I welcome his assistance. I appreciate the contributions made by the distribute maintainers over the years, and am glad to have Jason's help in getting those contributions into setuptools as well. Continuing to keep the code bases separate isn't helping anybody, and as setuptools moves once again into active development to deal with the upcoming shifts in the Python-wide packaging infrastructure (the new PEPs, formats, SSL, TUF, etc.), it makes sense to combine efforts.
Aside from the problems experienced by people with one package that are fixed in the other, the biggest difficulties with the fork right now are faced by the maintainers of setuptools-driven projects like pip, virtualenv, and buildout, who have to either take sides in a conflict, or spend additional time and effort testing and integrating with both setuptools and distribute. We'd like to end that pain and simplify matters for end users by bringing distribute enhancements to setuptools and phasing out the distribute fork as soon as is practical.
In the short term, our goal is to consolidate the projects to prevent duplication, wasted effort, and incompatibility, so that we can start moving forward. This merge will allow us to combine resources and teams, so that we may focus on a stable but actively-maintained toolset. In the longer term, the goal is for setuptools as a concept to become obsolete. For the first time, the Python packaging world has gotten to a point where there are PEPs *and implementations* for key parts of the packaging infrastructure that offer the potential to get rid of setuptools entirely. (Vinay Sajip's work on distlib, Daniel Holth's work on the "wheel" format, and Nick Coghlan's taking up the reins of the packaging PEPs and providing a clear vision for a new way of doing things -- these are just a few of the developments in recent play.)
"Obsolete", however, doesn't mean unmaintained or undeveloped. In fact, for the "new way of doing things" to succeed, setuptools will need a lot of new features -- some small, some large -- to provide a migration path.
At the moment, the merge is not yet complete. We are working on a common repository where the two projects' history has been spliced together, and are cleaning up the branch heads to facilitate re-merging them. We'd hoped to have this done by PyCon, but there have been a host of personal, health, and community issues consuming much of our available work time. But we decided to go ahead and make an announcement *now*, because with the big shifts taking place in the packaging world, there are people who need to know about the upcoming merge in order to make the best decisions about their own projects (e.g. pip, buildout, etc.) and to better support their own users.
Thank you once again to all the distribute contributors, for the many fine improvements you've made to the setuptools package over the years, and I hope that you'll continue to make them in the future. (Especially as I begin to phase myself out of an active role in the project!)
I now want to turn the floor over to Jason, who's put together a Roadmap/FAQ for what's going to be happening with the project going forward. We'll then both be here in the thread to address any questions or concerns you might have. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks for the announcment, and especially thanks to all those who have worked on setuptools and distribute. Particular thanks to PJE for having both devised the thing and worked out how to get the community to adopt it. I'm looking forward to the packaging BoF now, instead of dreading it. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlFCCosACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ7qNgCgx+PDk8GYdmVIq1fbGdvqFt6K EaEAniahF//OJkZQ/LVnJx6m1DqS0r+D =0P09 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:54 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
Jason Coombs (head of the Distribute project) and I are working on merging the bulk of the improvements distribute made into the setuptools code base. He has volunteered to take over maintenance of setuptools, and I welcome his assistance. I appreciate the contributions made by the distribute maintainers over the years, and am glad to have Jason's help in getting those contributions into setuptools as well. Continuing to keep the code bases separate isn't helping anybody, and as setuptools moves once again into active development to deal with the upcoming shifts in the Python-wide packaging infrastructure (the new PEPs, formats, SSL, TUF, etc.), it makes sense to combine efforts.
Aside from the problems experienced by people with one package that are fixed in the other, the biggest difficulties with the fork right now are faced by the maintainers of setuptools-driven projects like pip, virtualenv, and buildout, who have to either take sides in a conflict, or spend additional time and effort testing and integrating with both setuptools and distribute. We'd like to end that pain and simplify matters for end users by bringing distribute enhancements to setuptools and phasing out the distribute fork as soon as is practical.
In the short term, our goal is to consolidate the projects to prevent duplication, wasted effort, and incompatibility, so that we can start moving forward. This merge will allow us to combine resources and teams, so that we may focus on a stable but actively-maintained toolset. In the longer term, the goal is for setuptools as a concept to become obsolete. For the first time, the Python packaging world has gotten to a point where there are PEPs *and implementations* for key parts of the packaging infrastructure that offer the potential to get rid of setuptools entirely. (Vinay Sajip's work on distlib, Daniel Holth's work on the "wheel" format, and Nick Coghlan's taking up the reins of the packaging PEPs and providing a clear vision for a new way of doing things -- these are just a few of the developments in recent play.)
"Obsolete", however, doesn't mean unmaintained or undeveloped. In fact, for the "new way of doing things" to succeed, setuptools will need a lot of new features -- some small, some large -- to provide a migration path.
At the moment, the merge is not yet complete. We are working on a common repository where the two projects' history has been spliced together, and are cleaning up the branch heads to facilitate re-merging them. We'd hoped to have this done by PyCon, but there have been a host of personal, health, and community issues consuming much of our available work time. But we decided to go ahead and make an announcement *now*, because with the big shifts taking place in the packaging world, there are people who need to know about the upcoming merge in order to make the best decisions about their own projects (e.g. pip, buildout, etc.) and to better support their own users.
Thank you once again to all the distribute contributors, for the many fine improvements you've made to the setuptools package over the years, and I hope that you'll continue to make them in the future. (Especially as I begin to phase myself out of an active role in the project!)
I now want to turn the floor over to Jason, who's put together a Roadmap/FAQ for what's going to be happening with the project going forward. We'll then both be here in the thread to address any questions or concerns you might have.
Quick question regarding open issues on Distribute (of which I have a handful assigned to me, and of which I intend to tackle a few others): Would it it make sense to just hold off on those until the merge is completed? Also is there anything I can do to help with the merge? How is that coming along? Erik
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Erik Bray <erik.m.bray@gmail.com> wrote:
Quick question regarding open issues on Distribute (of which I have a handful assigned to me, and of which I intend to tackle a few others): Would it it make sense to just hold off on those until the merge is completed?
I'd personally say no, go ahead and do the work now, except that it might be making more work for Jason later at the repository-munging level. ;-) So, hopefully he'll chime in here with a yea or nay.
Also is there anything I can do to help with the merge? How is that coming along?
It's... somewhat of a mess, actually. As Jason mentioned, distribute didn't import setuptools' version history at the start, so it's being a bit of a challenge to merge in a way that maintains history. My original suggestion for merging was to just cherrypick patches and apply them to setuptools (w/appropriate credits), because apart from the added tests and new features, there's at most about 5% difference between setuptools and distribute by line count. (And the added tests and features are mostly in separate files, so can be added without worrying about conflicts. And a lot of the remaining added stuff is being taken out, anyway, because it's the stuff that distribute uses to pretend it's setuptools.) Some challenges that have arisen since, are that the more changes Jason makes to the distribute branch in our merged repo, the less an "hg annot" is actually going to show the real authors of stuff anyway when we get done. (For example, putting back in the missing entry_points.txt whose absence has been causing problems w/distribute lately.) And we're getting huge and (mostly meaningless) conflicts during attempted merges, too. So, if you have any thoughts on what can be done to fix that, by all means, suggest away. ;-)
participants (8)
-
Carl Meyer -
Erik Bray -
Jim Fulton -
Marcus Smith -
Paul Moore -
Paul Nasrat -
PJ Eby -
Tres Seaver