PackagingWG/2020-11-02-pip-teamwide-meeting¶
Legacy Wiki Page
This page was migrated from the old MoinMoin-based wiki. Information may be outdated or no longer applicable. For current documentation, see python.org.
Monday, 2 Nov 2020
Participants:
Pradyun
Sumana
Georgia
Agenda:
Yay, beta is out!
Feels like we checked the checkbox!

Status & blockers
UX team: no blockers to report. status: analyzing surveys, still doing some interviews. Will check further re blockers.
Pradyun: beta is out! issues: mostly as listed below.
Sumana: did some triage + replaying to issue. some announcements (not widespread, likely today). making a “things that I do after a pip release” list.
Note: Ernest has a week off.
Invoices!
issue followup on things that we would like to finish before stable 20.3 release (from https://github.com/pypa/pip/projects/5 , https://github.com/pypa/pip/projects/6 , and https://github.com/pypa/pip/milestone/38 )
New resolver: Failure despite correct version numbers, when extras and already-installed package are encountered together #8785 https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/8785
last TODO was that Pradyun would investigate - any outcomes?
Not yet – haven’t looked into this since the call w/ TP.
Upon re-look: hairy problem. Bunch of edge case. Surfacing more often than we had expected. Needs to be fixed before 20.3.
TODO: Will need 3-4 hrs of Pradyun diving into it, connecting in currently unresolved issues.
https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/8380
ResolutionTooDeep{.backtick} error messageHave we resolved this with some other PR that maybe didn’t get attached?
We basically removed the
ResolutionTooDeep{.backtick} error in https://github.com/pypa/pip/pull/8275, because we figured “how many package names have we looked at” is a bad metric.
We should probably to reintroduce this, as a hard-stop error at 1000 backtracks on the same package name.
should this block the 20.3 release? It’s nice-to-have for when resolver behaves badly, as in #9011…. current threshold of 2 million is A LOT.
ResolutionTooDeep{.backtick} – we changed it to 2 million package names, so no one ever sees itbut users will get backtracking error message
PG: should not block 20.3 release
SH: ok with not blocking the release on re-introducing this error. the backtracking provides context to the users.
GA: sounds good.
TODO: Sumana to explain this on the bug and move it out of blockers
https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/9011 Pip 20.2.4 goes into infinite resolution of dependencies #9011
What’s next here? Investigation or implementation?
Investigation needed, seems a resolvelib bug.
Definitely a blocker for 20.3.
Not sure how likely it is that users hit this, since “when does this happen” is not clear.
But users hit this already, so, likely definitely gonna be a problem if not solved.
TODO: Pradyun to investigate [probably to talk with TP as well]
printing warnings about pip potentially introducing conflicts involving existing dependencies: https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/7744#issuecomment-717773481
What needs to happen next here? Implementation, or more UX work to polish the warnings/information messages?
Implementation, and then *maybe* another round of reviews if I was wrong about what’s do-able.
TODO: Pradyun to implement
Including backtracking in the user guide https://github.com/pypa/pip/pull/9040
incorporate Sumana’s commit and merge?
TODO: Pradyun to ^
https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/8495 New resolver error message is confusing if a package has inconsistent dependencies #8495
Is this post-release work or do we need it for 20.3?
Should be doable for 20.3, but I wouldn’t block the release for it.
TODO: Sumana to note in issue: not a 20.3 blocker
https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/9083 numpy, PEP 440, comparison, version normalization
How hard is this to fix?
Has an approved PR, can be merged as is (waiting on writing a test tho): https://github.com/pypa/pip/pull/9085
Pradyun resigns himself to making the 5-line test
TODO: implement test, merge