-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 127
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
Release 1.0? #140
Comments
@nicoddemus sorry must have missed this. Yes I guess we should start working seriously towards this. I was kind of hoping for at least the following features to be brought in before
This would lay a clean-ish slate for moving onto bigger and better ideas. I would love to see the deprecation list finished up as well yes! |
#51 is too big and complicated to get right in any kind of rush we need to reiterate introducing/removing arguments for invocations over time - i'd like to have @hpk42 as part of that discussion |
I haven't tracked pluggy development lately.
FWIW a 1.0 sounds fine with me, it's indeed stable
enough and there can always be a 1.1 and 2.0.
…On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 06:47 -0700, Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote:
#51 is too big and complicated to get right in any kind of rush
#87 is "just a feature" and needs experimentation in any case to get the api level right (see the discussion there)
we need to reiterate introducing/removing arguments for invocations over time - i'd like to have @hpk42 as part of that discussion
--
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#140 (comment)
|
I agree with @hpk42, IMO we only need to hold a 1.0 release if we have plans for backward incompatible changes for the near feature or if there are things we should start deprecating now, otherwise new features can come in the next minor releases. The main thing for me is that we have been using |
i agree - thanks everyone for the input |
So should we move forward with the deprecation list then now or no? |
By deprecation list you mean deprecation ?
|
@nicoddemus @RonnyPfannschmidt so sorry I've let this slide. So what's the consensus? |
yeah |
Before deprecating the impl-prefix support, we should port it over to pytest; every pytest plugin uses it, so it wouldn't be helpful to release a pluggy version which issues warnings for its usage. |
Since Python 2 is now officially no longer supported, perhaps pluggy 1.0 can be Python3-only? pytest is 3-only, so it's not a problem for it. Not sure about other pluggy users, but Python 2 users will continue to get the 0.13.x version so it's not that they'll stop working. |
For those watching, this is our current milestone list which is totally up for being modified. |
Oh, I was also going to ask should be start a Might be useful if we get multiple contributors nailing down the milestone list concurrently. |
Ok I'm putting up a tag on master on the history pinned at the merge commit for #147. |
We are planning to release pytest 6.0 soon, and it will be nice to be able to depend on Here are the remaining items from my POV:
I think the other items on the 1.0 milestone don't need a breaking change:
WDYT? If this is too much we can definitely stick with 0.13 for pytest 6.0. |
the unification and the setuptools entrypoint details will require some breaking change to acoud the accumulation of cruft we should take a look at what integration layer could be used there (in particular to enable steam-less changes in combination with tox, pytest, devpi and a few more users the rest i agree with |
@RonnyPfannschmidt what I meant was more that any changes there would require a deprecation period, so the breaking changes can't be done for 1.0.0 itself (the next release). But adding a deprecation can happen also after 1.0.0 is released, so I think it shouldn't block it. |
@bluetech sorry I've been absent. Cursory look says your list looks good to me. Btw for anyone looking for the milestone list (in case you missed it in my prior comment) I've also stuck it in the description. I'm trying to wrap up a big piece of something new I'm working on. |
I have been prototyping pluggy in a small project I am working on, and as a result looking into pluggy in general. There might be one feature #151 you might look into before a 1.0 release. Having a asyncio compatible design (at least on paper) before signalling any kind of API stability might save you from some headaches. |
Hey! Thanks for this project! Thanks! |
ping @nicoddemus |
@RonnyPfannschmidt @goodboy @bluetech we have still some issues but none of them seems to be a blocker for 1.0 (#154 doesn't even seem doable in a reasonable time frame either): https://github.com/pytest-dev/pluggy/milestone/1 Any objections with going ahead and making |
My plan was #140 (comment), but PR #244 didn't get any approvals besides my own, and got stuck. I think it would be good to release 1.0 in the current state and consider the rest of the plan for a 2.0, than to wait any more. |
None from I. If peeps want scrappier / more frequent releasing I have no qualms with it; more then happy to review and fix things where needed 😎 |
Looks good! I can also help you to finish some work if you need, don't hesitate to ping me! |
@nicoddemus do you have any idea about when it could be achieved? |
Hi @adriendelsalle, Thanks for the ping. I'm under the impression that #326 was meant for 1.0, but I might be wrong (and just realized it is not actually in the 1.0 milestone). @RonnyPfannschmidt what do you think? |
its not planned for 1.0 - last week i simply had a small sprint to get pluggy faster by cython/mypyc and some refactorings |
Ahh OK, thanks for the clarification! I will kick off the release later today then. 👍 |
Thanks everyone who participated. |
Since you're all |
@hoefling pytest 7.0 should support pluggy 1.0 or later (actually it does support already, we will just update the version pinning: pytest-dev/pytest#9040). |
@nicoddemus awesome, thanks! Once pytest-dev/pytest#9040 is merged, I can test things out with pytest git dependency until 7.0 is out. |
Hi,
As has been discussed before, is it time to start discussing about the 1.0 release? It has been in use in production in
pytest
,tox
anddevpi
for some time after all.Milestone 1.0
https://github.com/pytest-dev/pluggy/milestone/1
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: