In theory I could have a go, and certainly I do intend to go through the process for the next release, if not now. The main problem is that I have also been super busy this month. Among other things I'm looking for a new consulting gig for June-> and this is a lot of overhead.
Anyway, if I have some time before 27th, I will do it. I think you documented the process well enough in the comments of the ticket. On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 6:42 PM Alexander Sorokoumov < aleksandr.sorokou...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > >
