> 2. Centralized venv storage — keep .venvs out of your project dirs
I do not like this. virtual environments have been always associated with projects and colocated with them. Moving .venv to centralized storage recreates conda philosophy which is very different from pip/uv approach.
In any case, I am using pixi now and like it a lot.
Given the telemetry, how did uv ever get approved/adopted by the open source community to begin with, or did it creep in? Why isn't it currently burning in a fire?
I suspect that my normal workflows might just have evolved to route around the pain that package management can be in python (or any other ecosystem really).
In what situations are uv most useful? Is it once you install machine learning packages and it pulls in more native stuff - ie is it more popular in some circles? Is there a killer feature that I'm missing?
78 comments
And the first two commits are "new fork" and "fork", where "new fork" is a nice (+28204 -39206) commit and "fork" is a cheeky (+23971 -23921) commit.
I think I'm good. And I would question the judgement of anyone jumping on this fork.
> 2. Centralized venv storage — keep .venvs out of your project dirs
I do not like this. virtual environments have been always associated with projects and colocated with them. Moving .venv to centralized storage recreates conda philosophy which is very different from pip/uv approach.
In any case, I am using pixi now and like it a lot.
In what situations are uv most useful? Is it once you install machine learning packages and it pulls in more native stuff - ie is it more popular in some circles? Is there a killer feature that I'm missing?
UV_CACHE_MAX_SIZEandUV_LOCKFILEwithUV_if they're new features? Makes no sense.Crazy that there is not way in uv to limit the cache size. I have loved using uv though, it is a breath of fresh air.
I assume mainstream uv development will go into maintenance mode now, so it’s great to see a quality lineage like this.