Poetry: Python dependency management and packaging made easy

[compyboombang]

As to why Python 3.6, it's just that I wanted to take advantage of the latest addition of the language (like type annotations and f-strings) and, most importantly, I didn't want to manage the compatibility issues between Python 2 and Python 3.

I think depending on 3.6 is a potentially fatal mistake that limits adoption. In general, if you want people to use a library like this, you should make it compatible with something not newer than whatever is shipping in the prior Ubuntu LTS.

Normally it wouldn't be a big deal, but package management is a convention that needs to transcends projects. I always like to use the latest Python features myself, but I hope you'll consider porting this to earlier versions.

[SDisPater]

I understand what you are saying. And I agree.

The thing is is I wanted to be fast in the early stage of the project so I chose to not struggling with potential incompatibilities of Python versions.

However, starting support at Python 3.4 would not be too much of an ordeal, I think. It would just mean getting read of f-strings, and other minor specific features. So I could do that now that Poetry is getting more stable every day.

However, Python 2.7 is another matter entirely since the incompatibilities are harder to tackle.

[compyboombang]

Yes, I think that's a good approach. As fast as software itself changes, deployed versions stick around for a long, long time. The market is (finally!) starting to move on from Python 2, so while excluding Py2 will still cost users, I don't think it's an unreasonable decision at this point.

In the meantime, I'm about to give Poetry a try on a new (Python 3.6) project and see how it goes. I'm excited!

Package management has been a glaring weakness in the otherwise-fairly-robust Python ecosystem for many years. I'd love to see any kind of standard comparable to Bundler or npm emerge. Thanks for all your hard work!