Skip to content
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

Twine 2.0? #490

Closed
bhrutledge opened this issue Sep 7, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

Twine 2.0? #490

bhrutledge opened this issue Sep 7, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@bhrutledge
Copy link
Contributor

bhrutledge commented Sep 7, 2019

There's at least a few open PR's that seem like good candidates for a major release with potentially breaking changes, and it seems like there's some interest in making that release. I'm curious what other @pypa/twine-maintainers think.

Also related: Prepare twine for 1.14.0 release - Pull Request #468

@jaraco
Copy link
Member

jaraco commented Sep 7, 2019

My usual inclination is not to bundle backward incompatibilities into releases.... as it makes it even more difficulty to separate those concerns. Better would be to have lots of incompatible releases, twine 2, 3, 4 each with a separate incompatibility. Then someone can accept all (with twine 4) or only some or none based on which version they elect.

However, this strategy relies on the ability to easily and rapidly make releases, which twine doesn't (yet) have #493.

In any case, I'm happy to make backward incompatible releases with any number of incompatibilities as long as the users have a clear indication of how to respond to those changes.

@pradyunsg
Copy link
Member

Honestly, only #437 has any significant user-side consequences. And well, the only actionable thing for them is to migrate away from Python 2, which is perfectly fine.

In its current state, #469 gets unblocked by #437 and will not have any user-side consequences. Introducing static typing to a codebase does not require any additional end-user system requirements. Even depending on typing being available at runtime isn't necessary but it's OK if you're on Python 3 only since it's in the standard library.
(related: https://github.com/pypa/pip/blob/master/src/pip/_internal/utils/typing.py#L12-L14)

#488 is an improvement to the check command output. I've noted my thoughts on treating that as "backward incompatible" here: #488 (comment). tl;dr -- don't, because you'll have to treat every change to twine's output as backward incompatible, but it's call for y'all to make and I'm OK with whatever gets this done quicker.

@jaraco
Copy link
Member

jaraco commented Sep 17, 2019

I've released 1.15 with #488.

@jaraco
Copy link
Member

jaraco commented Sep 22, 2019

In #498, I propose releasing 2.0 with the Python 3-only change (and one other). I'm happy to roll out #469 when it's ready.

@jaraco jaraco closed this as completed Sep 22, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants