Rename package to instructlab.sdg from instructlab_sdg
#14
Conversation
|
The instructlab side went in, so this can go in now once I rebase it. |
russellb
force-pushed
the
namespace-package
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b193466 to
f5c27f1
Compare
russellb
force-pushed
the
namespace-package
branch
3 times, most recently
from
9fa49d9 to
125f72d
Compare
|
I think I'm down to a linter fight between ruff wanting this import to move to its own first party section but if I do that, there's another linter complaining that all of the |
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| __path__ = __import__("pkgutil").extend_path(__path__, __name__) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this __init__.py needed here?
This will allow some portions of a namespace to be legacy portions while others are migrated to PEP 420.
https://peps.python.org/pep-0420/#migrating-from-legacy-namespace-packages
indicates (to me) that it is not necessary in the PEP 420 parts of the namespace (like this and instructlab.schema) to have an instructlab/__init__.py.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's needed for now until we have reconfigured all tooling and linters to deal with PEP 420 namespace packages.
Part of issue instructlab#2 This changes to use Python namespace packages where `instructlab` is the namespace used for our libraries. Signed-off-by: Russell Bryant <[email protected]>
russellb
force-pushed
the
namespace-package
branch
from
125f72d to
299381b
Compare
|
I fixed the linter issue. |
Part of issue #2
This changes to use Python namespace packages where
instructlabisthe namespace used for our libraries.
Signed-off-by: Russell Bryant [email protected]
instructlabinstructlab#1263