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

[Feature] Migate to uv. #25

Open
3 of 5 tasks
Mr-Sunglasses opened this issue Dec 24, 2024 · 0 comments
Open
3 of 5 tasks

[Feature] Migate to uv. #25

Mr-Sunglasses opened this issue Dec 24, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
💻 aspect: code Concerns the software code in the repository ✨ goal: improvement Improvement to an existing feature 🟩 priority: low Low priority and doesn't need to be rushed 🚦 status: awaiting triage Has not been triaged by a maintainer

Comments

@Mr-Sunglasses
Copy link
Member

[Feature] Migrate to uv

This feature request aims to migrate the project to use the uv package manager for improved dependency management and build efficiency.


Problem

Currently, the project relies on a package manager that lacks certain optimizations or features, such as faster dependency resolution, improved caching mechanisms, or better support for modern workflows. This results in longer build times, maintenance challenges, and potentially less flexibility in dependency management.


Description

The uv package manager offers several advantages over the current solution, including:

  • Faster Dependency Resolution: uv optimizes package installation and updates, significantly reducing the time required for these operations.
  • Improved Caching Mechanism: Dependencies are cached more effectively, leading to faster repeat builds and installations.
  • Enhanced Developer Experience: With a modern CLI and better support for new package formats and versioning standards, uv simplifies the workflow.
  • Better Ecosystem Support: uv supports a wider range of package sources and formats, making it easier to integrate and manage complex dependency trees.

By migrating to uv, the project can achieve:

  • Shorter development cycles due to faster build times.
  • Reduced friction in managing dependencies.
  • Improved support for modern development practices.

Alternatives

Several alternatives were considered:

  1. Stay with the current package manager:

    • Pros: No migration effort required.
    • Cons: Continued inefficiencies and lack of modern features.
  2. Switch to other package managers (e.g., npm, yarn, pnpm):

    • Pros: Some might offer partial improvements.
    • Cons: uv offers a more comprehensive set of features tailored to our needs.
  3. Hybrid Approach:

    • Use uv alongside the current package manager.
    • Cons: Adds complexity and might lead to conflicts.

uv stands out as the most robust and forward-thinking solution, addressing both current challenges and future scalability.


Additional Context

This migration is expected to be straightforward for most of the project but might require slight adjustments in the following areas:

  • Updating package definitions and scripts.
  • Validating compatibility with existing dependencies.
  • Documenting the migration process for contributors.

Implementation

Steps:

  1. Install uv in the development environment.
  2. Convert the existing dependency definitions to uv-compatible formats.
  3. Update build and CI/CD pipelines to use uv commands.
  4. Test the project thoroughly to ensure compatibility and performance.
  5. Document the migration process for contributors and users.

Checklist

  • Evaluate feasibility and compatibility of uv.
  • Plan and execute migration steps.
  • Update documentation to reflect the changes.
  • Test thoroughly to ensure seamless operation post-migration.

Implementation Interest

  • I would be interested in implementing this feature.
@Mr-Sunglasses Mr-Sunglasses added ✨ goal: improvement Improvement to an existing feature 🚦 status: awaiting triage Has not been triaged by a maintainer 💻 aspect: code Concerns the software code in the repository 🟩 priority: low Low priority and doesn't need to be rushed labels Dec 24, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
💻 aspect: code Concerns the software code in the repository ✨ goal: improvement Improvement to an existing feature 🟩 priority: low Low priority and doesn't need to be rushed 🚦 status: awaiting triage Has not been triaged by a maintainer
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant