Overall this sounds good to me. What do you propose to take over for thrift compilation?
-=Bill On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Kevin Sweeney <kevi...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > We've had a lot of flakiness in our Python build recently, related to our > position of being early adopters of the pants python tooling. This has lead > to CI flakiness and has put us in a position of being user support for > Pants just for people to be able to build our project. I'd like to gauge > the community's support for moving to a more standard Python workflow. > > Background > > Right now we use pants for the several stages of our python build: > > - Resolving dependencies from PyPI (BUILD files instead of > requirements.txt). > - Generating Python code from our Thrift IDLs (python_thrift_library in > BUILD files). > - ./pants setup_py - Auto-generating sdists (.tar.gz with a setup.py) > consumable as downstream libraries. > - ./pants goal test - Running Python unit tests in a virtualenv with > py.test. > - ./pants build - Creating deployable artifacts (.pex). > > Proposal > > I'd like to propose we consider replacing parts of this build with more > standard mechanisms. > > Specifically I'd like to replace the use of pants as the test runner with > tox <https://tox.readthedocs.org/en/latest/> and to replace pants as the > tool for deployable artifacts (used in the Vagrant environment for > tutorials and end-to-end tests) with bdist_wheel and pip install. > > Users would retain the ability to use PEX at deploy-time if they want, as > we'll still be exporting a standard setup.py packages. > > I'm sure there's a fair amount of work to get there, but before we start > down that path I'd like to come to consensus about whether this is a good > idea. > > Please discuss. >
