Thanks for the discussion! Given the overall positive take on this change and a +1 on the PR, I am going to merge it.
Best, Alex On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 4:19 AM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 for using uv. > > -Lari > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 at 01:28, Alexander Sorokoumov > <aleksandr.sorokou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hey everyone, > > > > This change is significant, so I wanted to open a discussion about it > first. > > > > The main motivation for this change has been that the current Poetry > > version does not support later Python versions and newer Poetry versions > do > > not support our current project config format. Since the build system > > upgrade requires additional effort, I was wondering if it is time to shop > > for an alternative and did find uv. > > > > In my opinion, uv is a more promising alternative for 2 reasons: > > > > 1. It follows an approach similar to build tools one can find in other > > ecosystems (looking at Maven/Bazel/Gradle). It is a single entry-point to > > manage dependencies, python versions, build and upload artifacts, etc. I > > did not find a way to also run tests and benchmarks without tox/pytest, > but > > it is definitely a step in the right direction IMO. > > 2. It is fast. I encourage reviewers to compare how long it takes to sync > > dependencies or re-build a lock file with uv vs Poetry. > > > > I have opened a PR to showcase what the project will look like after this > > change https://github.com/apache/otava/pull/80. > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > > > Best, > > Alex >
