build/pkgs/python_build: Make it a standard wheel package
#37300
Conversation
mkoeppe
force-pushed
the
python_build_standard
branch
from
58ab4c8
to
7c14ad5
Compare
mkoeppe
changed the title
build/pkgs/python_build: Make standard
mkoeppe
changed the title
build/pkgs/python_build: Make standardbuild/pkgs/python_build: Make it a standard wheel package
mkoeppe
force-pushed
the
python_build_standard
branch
from
7c14ad5
to
4705464
Compare
mkoeppe
force-pushed
the
python_build_standard
branch
from
4705464
to
706d714
Compare
mkoeppe
force-pushed
the
python_build_standard
branch
2 times, most recently
from
968051b
to
7ceb349
Compare
mkoeppe
force-pushed
the
python_build_standard
branch
from
7ceb349
to
be6085a
Compare
|
Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 3d02634; changes) is ready! 🎉 |
…ires.txt ]; then git mv install-requires.txt version_requirements.txt; fi); done
mkoeppe
force-pushed
the
python_build_standard
branch
from
be6085a
to
3d02634
Compare
|
The failures in CI Linux incremental are the unrelated #37786. |
|
Thank you! |
|
Once again, someone is manipulating labels here. |
|
@tobiasdiez: I am trying to understand the removal on the label "positive review" here. Could you help me out? Carefully checking the timestamp of every vote on sage-devel and checking the time of the removal of the "positive review", I can infer two things:
Perhaps I am missing something: on the related sage-devel discussion, a vote has taken place. The author expressed the approval before others did put their vote in writing. Then, you changed the label 12 hours after, without explanation (which leaves me trying to figure out what happened here). Then, the discussion on sage-devel continues, and so do the votes, and as of right now, I count 5-2. What I can see, is first that the current decision process on PRs requiring a vote has to be improved. This shall be reported on sage-devel, for a discussion with the community. Second, the trace left on the development thread here is not what I, personally, qualify as constructive or transparent (as I am trying to understand what is going on, I am struggling!). My suggestion, as a member of the Code of Conduct Committee, is that for transparency and constructiveness sake, I would suggest that changing labels should always be done with a justification (just like I was always used to on "trac" since 2010). |
Currently, @tobiasdiez is blocked from posting on @mkoeppe's PRs. I understand that that's why he could not explain his action here. I think it would have been helpful to propose (or at least explain) this label change on sage-devel in that case. |
|
I'm restoring the "positive review" label. |
dimpase
added
disputed
|
@dimpase it is my understanding that this is not a "disputed" PR. There is a regular vote on sage-devel about this PR. The vote has now been open for a week and a majority is in favor if I read it correctly. (Maybe the vote has been called a bit too quickly initially, btw.) |
saraedum
added
s: positive review
and removed
disputed
… package
<!-- ^^^^^
Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title.
Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below.
For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to
calculate 1+1"
-->
<!-- Describe your changes here in detail -->
Vote: https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/MIU-xo9b7pc
Vote again: https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/EMeTJ6Hwgns
(approved)
<!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For
example "Fixes sagemath#12345". -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately. -->
### 📝 Checklist
<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately -->
<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
<!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. -->
- [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory.
- [ ] The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
- [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
- [ ] I have created tests covering the changes.
- [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
### ⌛ Dependencies
<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on
- sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency
- sagemath#34567: ...
-->
<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
URL: sagemath#37300
Reported by: Matthias Köppe
Reviewer(s): François Bissey
… package
<!-- ^^^^^
Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title.
Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below.
For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to
calculate 1+1"
-->
<!-- Describe your changes here in detail -->
Vote: https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/MIU-xo9b7pc
Vote again: https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/EMeTJ6Hwgns
(approved)
<!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For
example "Fixes sagemath#12345". -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately. -->
### 📝 Checklist
<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately -->
<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
<!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. -->
- [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory.
- [ ] The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
- [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
- [ ] I have created tests covering the changes.
- [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
### ⌛ Dependencies
<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on
- sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency
- sagemath#34567: ...
-->
<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
URL: sagemath#37300
Reported by: Matthias Köppe
Reviewer(s): François Bissey
<!-- Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title. --> <!-- Don't put issue numbers in the title. Put it in the Description below. --> <!-- For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#12345", use "Add a new method to multiply two integers" --> ### 📚 Description This is the next step of the long term effort to use the standard tools of modern Python packaging in the build system of the Sage distribution, enabled by making `python_build` a standard package. We add `python_build` to our `PYTHON_TOOLCHAIN` and replace the use of `pip wheel` by using `python -m build`. <!-- Describe your changes here in detail. --> <!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? --> <!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For example "Fixes sagemath#12345". --> - Resolves sagemath#34590. - Also, we remove the unused helper function `sdh_prefix_args`. <!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it appropriately. --> ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. It should be `[x]` not `[x ]`. --> - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [ ] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency - sagemath#34567: ... --> - Depends on sagemath#37300 <!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! --> URL: sagemath#35618 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee
Vote: https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/MIU-xo9b7pc
Vote again: https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/EMeTJ6Hwgns (approved)
📝 Checklist
⌛ Dependencies