Does Glyph still believe these arguments to be true today? I don't know how long ago he said that, but I do know there's a lot of stuff that's been done to make packaging better :) Perhaps we could look into shipping twisted releases with and without dependencies? I personally have no such issues since I just let pip/tox handle everything for me and it figures it out already. cheers lvh On 26 Jul 2012, at 18:02, Jonathan Lange <jml@mumak.net> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Vladimir Perić <vlada.peric@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
Hi!
...
Now, one approach is to add six as a dependency of Twisted - it is a very small library so hardly a problem; on the other hand, it is an additional dependency. ... What do you all think? In the end, it boils down to "additional dependency" vs. "less code to maintain".
Not strictly what I think, but here's the relevant bits from what Glyph said last time I asked about adding a dependency, testtools, to Twisted:
""" Users still routinely struggle with the one dependency we allowed Twisted core to have - zope.interface. I do still think that's worth it, since it freed us from a significant and complex maintenance burden. And I do sometimes wish that we could make it an optional or bundled dependency, to give users who have to download Twisted themselves a gentler on-ramp. [...]
[...] I would set the bar very high for making testtools a required dependency for Twisted's own test suite. Just for starters, the Python packaging ecosystem disaster would need to be fixed; also, the name of the package should be changed to be more unique so that users wouldn't find things like <http://www.testtools.com/> and <https://github.com/ferruhy/testtools> when searching around the web for the contents of the inevitable packaging error message. """
jml
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python