Thanks for the clarification, Henrik! +1 to this approach. Unfortunately, I am traveling until May 27 and do not have access to my home laptop used for open-source development. We can either wait for the next RC until I come back or I can write down the detailed instructions for you to do the RC. What do you prefer?
On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 1:12 PM Henrik Ingo <hen...@nyrkio.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 1:47 PM Alexander Sorokoumov < > aleksandr.sorokou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for taking a look at this, Henrik! > > > > If I understand your proposal, it is: > > 1. Do only the source release in dist.apache.org. > > 2. Once that's approved, use that source release to generate PyPI > > artifacts and publish them to PyPi. > > > > If this is the correct understanding, then I am +1 to it - it is the > > pragmatic thing to do now. > > > > > The above is correct but to clarify, the tar file is the same in both. 2 is > just to upload the same tar file as was used in 1. There is nothing to > generate. (In other words, don't generate .whl files.) > > (PyPI supports both tar.gz and *.whl altrenatives.) > > > > We can revisit what we include in releases after upgrading poetry (or > > switching to uv). There is a good chance this problem will just go away. > > > > > Yes. Another reason to go light for now. > > henrik >
