Hi,

Thanks Daniel for taking care of this point and contributing to it.

Daniel already opened some reviews on this subject :

https://review.opendev.org/#/c/758028/

This can be tracked using topic "setuptools-explicit" (https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:setuptools-explicit)

Hervé Beraud made a remark on review 758028:

~~~

The rationale behind these changes LGTM.

However I've some concerns related to pbr:

pbr rely on setuptools [1] and still support python2.7 [2]
setuptools 50.3.0 only support python3 [3]
So I wonder if we should also define a version which support python2.7 to avoid issues on with this context. setuptools dropped the support of python 2 with 45.0.0 [4] so we could use the version 44.1.1 [5] for this use case.

[1] https://opendev.org/openstack/pbr/src/branch/master/setup.py#L16
[2] https://opendev.org/openstack/pbr/src/branch/master/setup.cfg#L25
[3] https://pypi.org/project/setuptools/50.3.0/
[4] https://setuptools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/history.html#v45-0-0
[5] https://pypi.org/project/setuptools/44.1.1/

~~~

I think it could be worth defining the version or a rule (py2 vs py3) here before performing a large series of patches.

Cheers,

SEBASTIEN BOYRON
Red Hat

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 10:31 AM Daniel Bengtsson <dbengt@redhat.com> wrote:

Le 02/10/2020 à 15:40, Sebastien Boyron a écrit :
> I am opening the discussion and pointing to this right now, but I think
> we should wait for the Wallaby release before doing anything on that
> point to insert this modification
> into the regular development cycle. On a release point of view all the
> changes related to this proposal will be released through the classic
> release process
> and they will be landed with other projects changes, in other words it
> will not require a range of specific releases for projects.
It's a good idea. I agree explicit is better than implicit. I'm
interesting to help on this subject.