Skip to content
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 package on PyPI #125

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jan 16, 2025
Merged

Release package on PyPI #125

merged 8 commits into from
Jan 16, 2025

Conversation

Batalex
Copy link
Contributor

@Batalex Batalex commented Jan 9, 2025

Changes

  • Add a release step to publish the package on PyPI. This will help us build kyuubi with strict deps enabled.

  • The makefile relies on sg, which prompts for a password on Noble, so let's use jammy for now to run integration tests

@Batalex Batalex self-assigned this Jan 9, 2025
@Batalex Batalex requested review from welpaolo and deusebio January 10, 2025 09:08
Copy link
Contributor

@deusebio deusebio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I'm not against this, and I believe publishing to PyPi seems sensible at this point. I didn't want to do this at first when we were still a bit unsure about the name, format of the package and so on, but now this library is becoming increasingly central in our stack, also having it in the central pypi for better visibility and indexing makes sense.

I'm not sure I understand the added value about the kyuubi and strict dependencies though. Could you clarify what is the upside on this respect for my own understanding? I would have thought that installing a strict version, say "==0.8.0" or a certain tag from the github repo would be the same. Actually I would have thought that maybe the advantage would be to use open requirements in dependant project instead, when this is hosted on PyPi

minor the update of ruffs with all the fixes associated seemed a bit orthogoal to publishing to PyPi. I would have kept it in a different commit unless it is required

tox.ini Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@deusebio deusebio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Once this is fully approved, I will add the token to the secrets (I'll also figure out straight away if we already have one as DP)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants