Setuptools-Distribute merge announcement
As PJE mentioned in his e-mail, he and I have been working on a merge of the code lines of Setuptools and Distribute. I'm excited about this transition and I hope you are too. In this message, I will provide some answers based on questions that he and I encountered in our discussions and subsequent merge activity. If you have further questions, please direct them to both of us and we intend to answer promptly and also update the FAQ at the wiki (https://bitbucket.org/jaraco/setuptools/wiki/Setuptools%20and%20Distribute% 20Merge%20FAQ). - Jason R. Coombs Where does the merge occur? The merge is occurring between the heads of the default branch of Distribute and the setuptools-0.6 branch of Setuptools. The Setuptools SVN repo has been converted to a Mercurial repo hosted on Bitbucket. The work is still underway, so the exact changesets included may change, although the anticipated merge targets are Setuptools at 0.6c12 and Distribute at 0.6.35. What happens to other branches? Distribute 0.7 was abandoned long ago and won't be included in the resulting code tree, but may be retained for posterity in the original repo. Setuptools default branch (also 0.7 development) may also be abandoned or may be incorporated into the new merged line if desirable (and as resources allow). What history is lost/changed? As setuptools was not on Mercurial when the fork occurred and as Distribute did not include the full setuptools history (prior to the creation of the setuptools-0.6 branch), the two source trees were not compatible. In order to most effectively communicate the code history, the Distribute code was grafted onto the (originally private) setuptools Mercurial repo. Although this grafting maintained the full code history with names, dates, and changes, it did lose the original hashes of those changes. Therefore, references to changes by hash (including tags) are lost. Additionally, any heads that were not actively merged into the Distribute 0.6.35 release were also omitted. As a result, the changesets included in the merge repo are those from the original setuptools repo and all changesets ancestral to the Distribute 0.6.35 release. What features will be in the merged code base? In general, all "features" added in distribute will be included in setuptools. Where there exist conflicts or undesirable features, we will be explicit about what these limitations are. Changes that are backward-incompatible from setuptools 0.6 to distribute will likely be removed, and these also will be well documented. Bootstrapping scripts (ez_setup/distribute_setup) and docs, as with distribute, will be maintained in the repository and built as part of the release process. Documentation and bootstrapping scripts will be hosted at python.org, as they are with distribute now. Documentation at telecommunity will be updated to refer or redirect to the new, merged docs. On the whole, the merged setuptools should be largely compatible with the latest releases of both setuptools and distribute and will be an easy transition for users of either library. Who is invited to contribute? Who is excluded? While we've worked privately to initiate this merge due to the potential sensitivity of the topic, no one is excluded from this effort. We invite all members of the community, especially those most familiar with Python packaging and its challenges to join us in the effort. We have lots of ideas for how we'd like to improve the codebase, release process, everything. Like distribute, the post-merge setuptools will have its source hosted on bitbucket. (So if you're currently a distribute contributor, about the only thing that's going to change is the URL of the repository you follow.) Also like distribute, it'll support Python 3, and hopefully we'll soon merge Vinay Sajip's patches to make it run on Python 3 without needing 2to3 to be run on the code first. Why Setuptools and not Distribute or another name? We do understand that this announcement might be unsettling for some. The setuptools name has been subjected to a lot of deprecation in recent years, so the idea that it will now be the preferred name instead of distribute might be somewhat difficult or disorienting for some. We considered use of another name (Distribute or an entirely new name), but that would serve to only complicate matters further. Instead, our goal is to simplify the packaging landscape but without losing any hard-won advancements. We hope that the people who worked to spread the first message will be equally enthusiastic about spreading the new one, and we especially look forward to seeing the new posters and slogans celebrating the new setuptools. What is the timeframe of release? There are no hard timeframes for any of this effort, although progress is underway and a draft merge is underway and being tested privately. As an unfunded volunteer effort, our time to put in on it is limited, and we've both had some recent health and other challenges that have made working on this difficult, which in part explains why we haven't met our original deadline of a completed merge before PyCon. What version number can I expect for the new release? The new release will roughly follow the previous trend for setuptools and release the new release as 0.7. This number is somewhat arbitrary, but we wanted something other than 0.6 to distinguish it from its ancestor forks but not 1.0 to avoid putting too much emphasis on the release itself and to focus on merging the functionality. In the future, the project will likely adopt a versioning scheme similar to semver to convey semantic meaning about the release in the version number.
"Jason R. Coombs" <jaraco@jaraco.com> writes:
Who is invited to contribute? Who is excluded?
As long as the merged project, whatever it's called, doesn't become as closed of to community contributions or input as led to the fork in the first place, a merge seems like a great idea. Personally, if I have the option, I'd probably choose to stick to "distribute" until I have some experience indicating that the merged project won't have the same problems that led to the original fork. Meantime, I raise my glass to the merge and to the Distribute developers for keeping things moving! Ross
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Ross Patterson <me@rpatterson.net> wrote:
"Jason R. Coombs" <jaraco@jaraco.com> writes:
Who is invited to contribute? Who is excluded?
As long as the merged project, whatever it's called, doesn't become as closed of to community contributions or input as led to the fork in the first place, a merge seems like a great idea. Personally, if I have the option, I'd probably choose to stick to "distribute" until I have some experience indicating that the merged project won't have the same problems that led to the original fork.
Meantime, I raise my glass to the merge and to the Distribute developers for keeping things moving!
Distribeaut! I welcome our new setuptools overlords, and it will be so much easier to just call it setuptools always, and eventually put it on a shelf. Stunning news. :-) Daniel
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jason R. Coombs <jaraco@jaraco.com> wrote:
As PJE mentioned in his e-mail, he and I have been working on a merge of the code lines of Setuptools and Distribute. I'm excited about this transition and I hope you are too.
Yay, thank you both for working hard to make this happen, and also for announcing it now for the sake of my sanity (and probably Jason's too) at the packaging and distribution mini-summit on Friday night :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Hello, On 03/14/2013 01:57 AM, Jason R. Coombs wrote:
As PJE mentioned in his e-mail, he and I have been working on a merge of the code lines of Setuptools and Distribute. I'm excited about this transition and I hope you are too.
I think I can offer you some help, by providing some windows support in the means of testing with various python versions and building binary packages/installers. Note, current tests are failing... http://winbot.zope.org/builders -- Best regards, Adam GROSZER -- Quote of the day: Men show their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable. - Goethe
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Adam GROSZER <agroszer.ll@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I can offer you some help, by providing some windows support in the means of testing with various python versions and building binary packages/installers.
Note, current tests are failing...
That looks like the same problem other people are seeing; the problem is that the source you're building from lacks a proper setuptools.egg-info/entry_points.txt. Are you building from revision control directly, or from an sdist? A possible workaround is to build with a working version of setuptools or distribute on sys.path when you run setup.py. The distribute modules will get imported, but the egg-info will get picked up from elsewhere, enabling the proper functionality. (Setuptools doesn't have this problem because it includes the entry_points.txt and other critical .egg-info files in its revision control.) It would appear that either the entry_points.txt was recently removed, or there was some other workaround for its absence which has recently been removed; I have not had time to investigate, and in any case am not that familiar with the distribute side of things.
Hello, On 03/14/2013 05:25 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Adam GROSZER <agroszer.ll@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I can offer you some help, by providing some windows support in the means of testing with various python versions and building binary packages/installers.
Note, current tests are failing...
http://winbot.zope.org/builders/distribute_dev%20py_265_win32/builds/202
That looks like the same problem other people are seeing; the problem is that the source you're building from lacks a proper setuptools.egg-info/entry_points.txt. Are you building from revision control directly, or from an sdist?
It's built from the bitbucket repo to provide the earliest possible warnings. Whatever you push there gets tested. http://winbot.zope.org/builders/distribute_dev%20py_265_win32/builds/202/ste...
A possible workaround is to build with a working version of setuptools or distribute on sys.path when you run setup.py. The distribute modules will get imported, but the egg-info will get picked up from elsewhere, enabling the proper functionality. (Setuptools doesn't have this problem because it includes the entry_points.txt and other critical .egg-info files in its revision control.)
It's built with an almost pristine python, which has just pywin32 installed.
It would appear that either the entry_points.txt was recently removed, or there was some other workaround for its absence which has recently been removed; I have not had time to investigate, and in any case am not that familiar with the distribute side of things.
Looks like running python.exe setup.py test is the right command to run the tests, isn't it? -- Best regards, Adam GROSZER -- Quote of the day: The more times you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Adam GROSZER <agroszer.ll@gmail.com> wrote:
Looks like running python.exe setup.py test is the right command to run the tests, isn't it?
It certainly should be. As I said, I'm not familiar with the distribute side, so maybe Jason or somebody else can lend a hand here. I know the problem doesn't exist in setuptools now, and it won't be present post-merge either, because we're reverting all changes on the distribute side that introduced bugs relative to setuptools. But short of somebody just sticking a valid setuptools.egg-info/entry_points.txt (and PKG-INFO) into distribute as a stopgap, I've got nothing to suggest for fixing it on the distribute side.
Congrats, This is a good move for packaging. I am very glad the merge is happening, knowing that it's now managed by a community of contributors. Cheers Tarek -- Tarek Ziadé · http://ziade.org · @tarek_ziade
On 3/14/13 9:49 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Congrats,
This is a good move for packaging. I am very glad the merge is happening, knowing that it's now managed by a community of contributors.
Cheers Tarek
Oh btw, I was told Philip was saying in private he was agreeing to do the merge as long as I was not involved in it ! :) I am totally fine with this, as I am not involved in packaging anymore. But please make sure he's not ending up being the *only )one maintaining it, because you would end up back to square one: having a project locked up by a single guy. Good luck ! Tarek -- Tarek Ziadé · http://ziade.org · @tarek_ziade
participants (7)
-
Adam GROSZER
-
Daniel Holth
-
Jason R. Coombs
-
Nick Coghlan
-
PJ Eby
-
Ross Patterson
-
Tarek Ziadé