It's been six months since I asked whether #uv is the future of #Python packaging: https://youtu.be/_FdjW47Au30With uv 0.3.0, the answer is IN and I'll tell ...
I’ve been mostly a poetry guy but have tested out uv a bit lately. Two main advantages I see are being able to install Python (I relied on pyenv before) and it’s waaay faster at solving/installing dependencies.
I’m not really worried about the migration work, from what I can tell it’s basically just moving a few things around. I’m more worried about losing features the team likes largely for performance reasons.
Our primary use cases are:
dev tools - standardize versions of tools like black, pylint, etc; not necessary if we move to ruff, we’ll just standardize on a version of that (like we do with poetry today)
tests - extra deps for CI/CD for things like coverage reports
I like the syntax poetry has, but I’d be willing to use something else, like in PEP 735.
One thing we also need is a way to define additional package repos since we use an internal repo. I didn’t see that called out in the PEP, and I haven’t looked at uv enough to know what their plan is, but this issue seems to be intended to fix it. We specify a specific repo for a handful of packages in each project, and we need that to work as well.
I’m currently looking to use ruff to replace some of our dev tools, and I’ll look back at uv in another release or two to see what the progress is on our blockers.
It’s a really bold claim. Every time a new package manager and/or dependency resolver comes around, we have the exact same headline
Relevant XKCD
I think of this literally every time I have any issue
It is a bold claim, but based on their success with ruff, I’m optimistic that it might pan out.
I do enjoy ruff a lot, but only time will tell
There are 14 competing standards…
have there been a lot of them?
pipx, poetry, pipsi, fades, pae, pactivate, pyenv, virtualenv, pipenv
Let’s hope this next one will be the true standard.
Removed by mod
We’re using poetry and it solves our problems. I’ll have to look into uv, but I don’t feel in any rush to switch away from poetry.
I’ve been mostly a poetry guy but have tested out uv a bit lately. Two main advantages I see are being able to install Python (I relied on pyenv before) and it’s waaay faster at solving/installing dependencies.
Yeah, it certainly looks nice, but my problems are:
So for me, it needs to at least have feature parity w/ poetry to seriously consider.
You should be using dockers cache mounts
https://docs.docker.com/build/cache/optimize/#use-cache-mounts
Good call. We have some other tech debt related to our docker usage, so I’ll add this to the list.
uv is still faster with a cold cache
and uv does have dep groups
about the second problem, there’s an issue open on writing a migration guide, but migrating manually is not too difficult.
I’m not really worried about the migration work, from what I can tell it’s basically just moving a few things around. I’m more worried about losing features the team likes largely for performance reasons.
Our primary use cases are:
ruff, we’ll just standardize on a version of that (like we do withpoetrytoday)I like the syntax
poetryhas, but I’d be willing to use something else, like in PEP 735.One thing we also need is a way to define additional package repos since we use an internal repo. I didn’t see that called out in the PEP, and I haven’t looked at
uvenough to know what their plan is, but this issue seems to be intended to fix it. We specify a specific repo for a handful of packages in each project, and we need that to work as well.I’m currently looking to use
ruffto replace some of our dev tools, and I’ll look back atuvin another release or two to see what the progress is on our blockers.