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

Wondering if we could collaborate? #1

Closed
asottile opened this issue Apr 18, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

Wondering if we could collaborate? #1

asottile opened this issue Apr 18, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@asottile
Copy link

It seems like we've written the same project and you may find this useful:

https://github.com/Yelp/requirements-tools#upgrade-requirements

@ssbarnea
Copy link

ssbarnea commented Jan 1, 2019

I guess this project is dead...

Reading requirements.txt...
Error: Can only work with pinned requirements for now.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/Users/ssbarnea/.pyenv/versions/2.7.15/bin/upgrade-requirements", line 11, in <module>
sys.exit(main())
File "/Users/ssbarnea/.pyenv/versions/2.7.15/lib/python2.7/site-packages/upgrade_requirements.py", line 58, in main
name, version = requirement.split('==')
ValueError: need more than 1 value to unpack

@joeyespo
Copy link
Owner

joeyespo commented Jan 1, 2019

@ssbarnea Not dead. Just slow to add features.

The error is this line Error: Can only work with pinned requirements for now. It might be worth removing the noise of the stack trace in this case. I just opened #6 to help implement this case.

@asottile asottile closed this as completed Jan 1, 2019
@joeyespo
Copy link
Owner

joeyespo commented Jan 1, 2019

@asottile Thanks! 😄

I'd be happy to collaborate. I do intend to keep this a one-off project in the spirit of "do one thing and do it well" though. (Admittedly, it could do that one thing a little better, but that's still easier than making a bigger thing better.) Would you be up for using this as a dependency or submodule of requirements-tools at all?

@asottile
Copy link
Author

asottile commented Jan 1, 2019

I looked through the source and the implementation in requirements-tools has more features and fewer bugs and taking a (significantly less active -- >1 year to respond to issue) dependency probably isn't the best plan of action

@joeyespo
Copy link
Owner

joeyespo commented Jan 1, 2019

@asottile Makes sense! Yeah I wouldn't want to do it until I could dedicate more time to this. In any case, I appreciate the ask 😃

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants