This changes the key used in PEP 735 Dependency Group Includes to be
'include-group'. Per feedback, and related to discussions about the
future direction of the PEP, this key will be less ambiguous when
Dependency Group Includes appear in other contexts and tables.
Refine "non-standard" phrasing in PEP 735
One of the Poetry maintainers noted tha the current phrasing could be
read as a negative take on `poetry` and `pdm` using "non-standard"
data.
At the same time, it's important to be clear that the problem being
solved here is not adequately solved by the existing tools due to the
lack of an existing underlying standard.
This rephrasing tries to balance these two concerns, describing the
current behaviors as 'tool specific' and focusing on "standardization"
(positive) rather than "non-standardization" (negative).
- Minor corrections / typo fixes
- Use a ref role for `use_cases` link. As currently written, it
renders incorrectly to a relative link to a `use_cases` page.
- Fix header style for Use Cases Appendix
- Add an explicit Compatibility section to Rationale
Future compatibility and designing the Dependency Groups data to be
extensible is a particular area of concern within the PEP. Although it
is addressed to some degree in the Specification, this small note in
the Rationale clarifies that compatibility with spec extensions is a
---------
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
- Remove the PEP 723 use-case
- Change to non-normalized names which require normalization
- Update the reference implementation to normalize
- Clarify the meaning of an Include
- Forbid cycles in includes
- Add a section on validation and compatibility which clearly defines
future-compatible behavior
- Remove 'include list' from open issues
- Add 'includes of `[project]` tables' to open issues
The major changes are as follows:
- remove support for path dependencies (!)
- include a reference implementation
- move 'use cases' into appendix
- rephrase position vis-a-vis Poetry and PDM, and move details
of those tools into an appendix
- include more example data throughout
- explicitly address the lack of standardization around "reserved
names" for Dependency Groups in several places
This revision should be shorter as well. Some redundant and wordy
sections have been struck or rewritten.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brett Cannon <brett@python.org>
Stephen Rosen
Sviatoslav Sydorenko (Святослав Сидоренко)