-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Time for new release, maybe? #4024
Comments
I’m using A year ago, Since then, I imagine that lots of work happened in both projects. I can’t see the result in @frostming you seem active here, perhaps you can get permissions to publish pre-releases? Overall this reminds me of what they say about early days of UNIX. (Was it?) “Worse is better”, meaning a project that has fewer features and more bugs becomes more popular because many contribute, while the project that was initially pretty good stagnates, perhaps because contributing is less necessary or harder. I wonder if the latter is the case simply because |
Fewer features/easier to release =
pip-tools doesn't manage the virtual environments for you (which is a feature that's usually more annoying than it's worth for me in Pipenv). Conversion workflow:
If you have inline/editable packages in the repo (that you install with |
Master hasn't been touched for a month now, and it only looks like minor tweaks have been made for a couple months before that. Is Pipenv dead now? 😭 If not, it's certainly doing a good impression of an abandoned project, compared to say pip itself. The lack of development, plus no release for over a year now does not look good for what was supposed be the official, one-stop-shop for Python Package Management. I had such good impressions and high hopes for Pipenv this time last year, especially as it appeared to be backed by the PyPA and the PSF. The Python community is hurting for something similar to Node/Yarn, NuGet, or With the critical bugs, accumulating unresolved and unanswered tickets, AWOL maintainers, and no support or updates, we have no option but to start unwinding Pipenv's presence in our stacks & workflows, and return to manual venv management. Pipenv has been a disappointment, and Pipenv has tarnished Python itself. |
Indeed. The damage is incredibly unacceptable. The PyPA needs to say something. Either archive the project or pick it up. |
I share some frustration with others, but I'd urge others to try to consider how much may be involved in cutting a new release. Asking for a silver-bullet version is a bit much.
That said, a (very brief) update on blockers upstream, from pip or other libs, would be awesome and might help us users appreciate how much is going into the next version. in #3742, pip and friends were mentioned:
It looks like frostming has been single-handedly trying to keep the flame alive while other contributors haven't had the time to support Pipenv, but if they get burnt out then it will be a dark day. I'm unaware of any other devs working on it, and I fear that there's a vicious cycle set up of extremely high hopes for Pipenv (admittedly set up by the early marketing), lots of users wanting every use-case fulfilled, an improved version is released (even if bugfixes only), and the devs that did it get flamed because it didn't fix it all or add all the features. @oz123 if you're worried about the tarnishing, I'd suggest trying to advance alternatives where you can. Poetry, pip-tools, and such live on. |
I truly believe pipenv is dead. The Python Foundation posted that is seeking developers for paid contract to improve pip
So the focus is on pip not pipenv.
So the official package installer is not pipenv.
It's also not clear for me why Python Packaging Authority has put full support in pipenv to be honest. Pipenv is designed for application dependency management, rather than libraries. From the pipenv docs (https://pipenv-es.readthedocs.io/es/stable/advanced.html#pipfile-vs-setup-py)
In other words, pipenv was not build to support library developers. As a user think it's time to drop pipenv, or rollback. I think Python Packaging Authority should make the "tough" decision to retire pipenv. It seems to take to many man hours to keep the software afloat. The fact that it's so hard to update pipenv after updated upstream software says a lot about how the software is written. I mean Poetry (yet another packaging tool) has had no problems releasing new versions. |
I've already switched all my work over to I think the Python Packaging Authority should focus on the core of these issues (making a world class dependancy resolver, potentially making one that can make use of cached data on pypi for example, making a flexible spec for a lock file, etc...) rather than on the cli/interface of tools that would replace pip. Pip and the tools that power it could be used as the basis for alternatives rather than having these third party tools reinvent the wheel every time. I think pipenv is a large project to take on for the Packaging Authority and it would be a good idea to retire or cut it loose. |
@petervanderdoes you could write a PR for this file https://github.com/pypa/packaging.python.org/blob/master/source/guides/tool-recommendations.rst to update it with Poetry, |
@nicktimko let's start with something, any further suggestions? |
Closing in favor of #4058 |
It will soon be a year since last release... a gazillion commits made in the meantime... surely there's something good in those... 🙏please 🙏 pretty please 🙏new release 🙏
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: