Vote: +1 to Mark PEP-660 final or -1 to keep it provisional
https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-660-editable-installs-for-pep-517-style-bui... Stéphane Bidoul raised the question of whether we should mark PEP-660 (editable installs) final now or not. Me and Paul Moore have differing opinions on this so we're calling a vote of the members. - Reasons to mark it final as Stéphane said: *PEP 660 has now been implemented in pip, flit, enscons, hatchling, pdm, poetry (merged by not released).* - Reasons why I think we should not mark it final: *You’ll only find out what gaps the standard has once it’s widely used. IMHO enough is not a few backends that are overall not that often used adopts it. But enough should be when the majority of the projects using it adopt it (e.g. 80% of projects). Now I can see this by either setuptools implementing it or people moving away from using setuptools in time. Most projects that currently implement the standard don’t provide a generic build framework, as setuptools does, but instead only a subset so they don’t necessarily expose the current standards potential issues (think e.g. flit is restricting itself currently to purely toml configuration driven and avoids having a build step).* I'll start the voting, from my side it's -1, aka keep it provisional for now. All the best, Bernat
participants (14)
-
Alex Grönholm
-
Bernat Gabor
-
Brett Cannon
-
Daniel Holth
-
Elana Hashman
-
Ian Stapleton Cordasco
-
Jason R. Coombs
-
layday
-
Paul Ganssle
-
Paul Moore
-
Pradyun Gedam
-
Ronny Pfannschmidt
-
Thomas Kluyver
-
Tzu-ping Chung