-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 893
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
Bump fsspec #1805
Bump fsspec #1805
Conversation
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ cachetools~=4.1 | |||
click<9.0 | |||
cookiecutter>=2.1.1, <3.0 | |||
dynaconf>=3.1.2, <4.0 | |||
fsspec>=2021.4, <=2022.1 | |||
fsspec>=2021.4, <=2022.7.1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any reason why you pinned it to 2022.7.1
and not just 2022.7
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
2022.7.1
is the latest release that fixes bugs in 2022.7
. Pinning to <2022.8
wouldn't make sense here since they're following calver.
reposting @datajoely comment here.
|
This is a very good point I think. Personally I think we are generally too conservative with upper bounding dependencies at the moment and should consider changing our policy on it, but I'm pretty sure @idanov would disagree strongly with this 😅 When fsspec first introduced CalVer I think we allowed a 6 month forward-looking window. I'd be happy to go to @MerelTheisenQB - thoughts? I'm happy to go with whatever you think is best here. @deepyaman I know thinks about these things and so would have an opinion here also 🙏 Maybe the least controversial solution would be to go along with our current conservative strategy for now but reconsider the policy in general and try to push forward with something like dependabot to automatically bump dependencies. |
Also @jenikovsky - as a kedro user, any thoughts on this? I see you ❤️ ed @datajoely's comment so would probably be in favour of a more relaxed upper bound so we we're not always playing catch up and relying on users to report when things aren't compatible? It's tricky to know what to do with these calver libraries. |
I think it's definitely worth revisiting our bumping strategy, but I'm not sure we can apply one strategy to all dependencies. |
Could we look at dependabot auto-opening PRs for this library? Presumably if the test suite passes we're good to go. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, I agree dependent bot will be a good fit here.
Can't agree more with using dependabot and being confident in your test suite which is very solid! These conflicts between kedro dependencies and other packages may be very annoying and it would be very nice to update upper bounds much more frequently. |
Keeping up using dependabot makes a lot of sense. |
Cool, thanks for the comments everyone. Let's do as I originally suggested then: keep this bound @jenikovsky I think we should be doing a release pretty soon - within the next week or so would be my guess. |
Signed-off-by: Deepyaman Datta <deepyaman.datta@utexas.edu>
Hi @AntonyMilneQB, would you have any updates on when the next release might be happening? Thank you |
Hi @jenikovsky, sorry for the delay on this - it's taking longer than expected indeed. We are still hoping to do one very shortly though 🤞 |
Description
Resolves #1804.
A reminder that we should at some point we should:
Checklist
RELEASE.md
file