I’m not really worried about the migration work, from what I can tell it’s basically just moving a few things around. I’m more worried about losing features the team likes largely for performance reasons.
Our primary use cases are:
dev tools - standardize versions of tools like black, pylint, etc; not necessary if we move to ruff, we’ll just standardize on a version of that (like we do with poetry today)
tests - extra deps for CI/CD for things like coverage reports
I like the syntax poetry has, but I’d be willing to use something else, like in PEP 735.
One thing we also need is a way to define additional package repos since we use an internal repo. I didn’t see that called out in the PEP, and I haven’t looked at uv enough to know what their plan is, but this issue seems to be intended to fix it. We specify a specific repo for a handful of packages in each project, and we need that to work as well.
I’m currently looking to use ruff to replace some of our dev tools, and I’ll look back at uv in another release or two to see what the progress is on our blockers.
I’m not really worried about the migration work, from what I can tell it’s basically just moving a few things around. I’m more worried about losing features the team likes largely for performance reasons.
Our primary use cases are:
ruff, we’ll just standardize on a version of that (like we do withpoetrytoday)I like the syntax
poetryhas, but I’d be willing to use something else, like in PEP 735.One thing we also need is a way to define additional package repos since we use an internal repo. I didn’t see that called out in the PEP, and I haven’t looked at
uvenough to know what their plan is, but this issue seems to be intended to fix it. We specify a specific repo for a handful of packages in each project, and we need that to work as well.I’m currently looking to use
ruffto replace some of our dev tools, and I’ll look back atuvin another release or two to see what the progress is on our blockers.