| ▲ | JoshTriplett 9 hours ago |
| Welp. I used to respect Astral. I hope someone responsible forks their Python tooling and maintains it. Ideally a foundation rather than a company. |
|
| ▲ | fortuitous-frog 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of the (stale) tooling that Astral replaced were managed by foundations instead of companies... |
|
| ▲ | krick 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yeah, well, the fact is that every person who ever touches Python needed uv, but only Astral folks created it. So, nope, there's no one capable of filling the void, just accept that it's fucked now. The best die first. |
| |
| ▲ | MoonZ 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 25 years of Python behind me, please let me tell you that hopefully you're wrong : we don't "need" uv :) | |
| ▲ | ex-aws-dude 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I write python all the time and I've never used it | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If that were true, Astral wouldn't have been able to build it in the first place. It's an Open Source tool. Perhaps folks excited about working on it can move to the Python Foundation and maintain it there. Perhaps companies who saw today's acquisition and became deeply worried about the future of this tooling could help support and fund such an effort. | | |
| ▲ | aseipp 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Part of the reason Astral as a team is so well liked is precisely because they are not part of the main fold or related to "Core Python"; they are an independent vendor, one that delivered high quality code and listened directly to users and their own (extensive) experience to do so, and they succeeded at that repeatedly. Python packaging has {been seen as, actually been} miserable for years, and so by the same token the capacity to believe in/buy into solutions from the "core project" has dwindled. "If it took Astral to fix it, why would it be any different going forward?" So that's all it really comes down to; uv isn't loved just because it's great but because it is in good hands. This real/perceived change of hands pretty much explains all the downstream responses to the news that you see in this thread. Regardless of who bought them, any fork is going to have very, very big shoes to fill, and filling those shoes appropriately is the big worry. | | |
| ▲ | dcreager 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Does that not also suggest (cautious, make sure we back it up with our actions) optimism about this acquisition? We're not breaking up the band. These tools will be in the same hands as before. And it would be extremely value-destructive to bring in a team like ours and then undermine what made us valued and successful. | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fair enough. But that does seem like something that'd depend more on the people than the organization. Whoever forks it will need to be trusted to continue to be "good hands", whatever organization they operate under the auspices of. |
|
|
|