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
Upgrade setuptools from 44.0.0 to 47.3.1 #10149
Conversation
@@ -9,5 +9,5 @@ class Lambdex(PythonToolBase): | |||
default_version = "lambdex==0.1.3" | |||
# TODO(John Sirois): Remove when we can upgrade to a version of lambdex with | |||
# https://github.com/wickman/lambdex/issues/6 fixed. | |||
default_extra_requirements = ["setuptools==44.0.0"] | |||
default_extra_requirements = ["setuptools==47.3.1"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will break setup-py
for Python 2 users. I think that this will be okay because we've already had Pytest default to a version that doesn't work with Python 2. So long as we add a warning to https://pants.readme.io/docs/python-setup-py-goal about what to do for Py2 support.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it worth saying that 2.0 is python 3 only? If it's easy enough to just wait to do this for a few months, that would be preferable...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There's no reason to be Python 3 only. It's not very expensive for us to still support Python 2. And we're already in several places defaulting to Python 3-only, but giving you the option to use Python 3.
Here, I only want to make sure we're aware of the implication of this change and on the same page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with @Eric-Arellano if we it easy/cheap to support python 2, we should.
Even though it is EOL, I think there a people still using it...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
People working with python2 already have to jump thru hoops, this is just one more. Which I think is fair all things considered.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, sounds good. We'll need to update the 2.0 docs then with a warning about Py2 support.
Thanks folks!
No description provided.