zlacker

Then it would probably be back to Poetry. Or some other newcomer, or maybe a fork of uv.

>>zelphi+(OP)
Honestly, given the constant rollercoaster of version management and building tools for Python the move to something else would be expected rather than surprising.

I’ve seems like a great tool, but I remember thinking the same about piping, too.

>>zelphi+(OP)
If you froze uv today it’ll take years for anything to get to a state where the switch would be worth it.

>>zelphi+(OP)
uv is very forkable - dual-licensed under Apache and MIT, high quality codebase, it's Rust rather than Python but the Python community has an increasing amount of Rust experience these days.

That's why I'm not personally too nervous about the strategic risk to the Python community of having such a significant piece of the ecosystem from a relatively young VC-backed company.

>>andrew+e1
uv is a revolution in every possible positive sense of the word in the Python world and I've been here since 1.5. it is imperative that bitter oldtimers like us try it, I did and the only regret I've got is that I didn't do it sooner.

>>baq+8g
I also tried it and am now using it for new projects. But I was just fine with Poetry too. Yes, uv is faster and probably better code. But my use-cases didn't necessitate to re-create the venvs frequently, so the slowness of Poetry didn't matter that much to me, and I am not using the "one-off script" kind of approaches that uv enables (writing the dependencies in a comment in the script itself).

So, yeah, uv is nice, but for me didn't fundamentally change that much.

>>andrew+e1
Autocorrect messed up my last line, should say:

uv seems like a great tool, but I remember thinking the same about pipenv, too.