A tool like pip currently has 3 real external inputs, Wheels, Sdists, and Repositories.
Currently wheels have internal versioning that allow evolving it and having clients be able to tell if they can accurately understand that wheel file. The relevant sdist threads appear like sdists are possibly going to gain the same thing. That leaves the repository API, which this PEP solves.
A major benefit of this is that it means that, combined with wheel and sdist versioning, that something like pip could stop “phoning home” every so often to check for new versions, and can instead recommend upgrading when an end user actually needs to upgrade (e.g. when they attempt to install something or interact with a repository that uses some new feature they don’t understand).
You can find the rendered view of this online at https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0629/
PEP: 629 Title: Versioning PyPI's Simple API Author: Donald Stufft <email@example.com> Discussions-To: https://discuss.python.org/ Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 16-Jul-2020 Post-History: 16-Jul-2020 Abstract ======== This PEP proposes adding a method for versioning the simple API so that clients can determine which features of the simple API that a specific repository supports. Rationale ========= When evolving the simple API, clients wish to be able to determine which features the repository supports. Currently there is no mechanism to do this, except by attempting to detect new features by looking at the data in the reponses and see if it appears like a particular feature is in use. This works reasonably well for a modern version of a client to determine if the repository supports all of the features it wants to implement, however it does not do anything to tell an older version the client that the repository supports features that it might not understand and to allow messaging to indicate that it might not be correctly understanding the output of the repository. An example of a scenario where this happened was the phasing in of python-requires metadata, while existing clients could still successfully use the repository, they were lacking the ability to understand this new piece of data which would have informed their behavior to select a better file for end users. Overview ======== This PEP proposes the inclusion of a meta tag on the responses of every sucessful request to a simple API page, which contains a name attribute of "pypi:repository-version", and a content that is a PEP 440 compatible version number, which is further constrained to ONLY be Major.Minor, and none of the additional features supported by PEP 440. This would end up looking like:: <meta name="pypi:repository-version" content="1.0"> Interpretation of this version is that incrementing the major version is considereed a backwards incompatible change such that existing clients would no longer be expected to be able to meaningfully use the new API, and incrementing the minor version is a backwards compatible change that existing clients would no longer be able to meaningfully use the API. It is expectation of this PEP that the major version will never be incremented, and any future major API evolutions would utilize a different mechanism for API evolution. However the major version is included to disambiguate with future versions (e.g. a hypothetical simple api v2 that lived at /v2/, but which would be confusing if the repository-version was set to a version >= 2). This PEP sets the current API version to "1.0", and expects that future PEPs that further evolve the simple API will increment the minor version number. Clients ------- Clients interacting with the simple API **SHOULD** introspect each response for the repository version, and if that data does not exist **MUST** assumee that it is version 1.0. When encountering a major version greater than expected, clients **MUST** hard fail with an appropiate error message for the user. When encountering a minor version greater than expected, clients **SHOULD** warn users with an appropiate message. Clients **MAY** still continue to use feature detection in order to determine what features a repository uses. Rejected Ideas ============== Using a Header -------------- Instead of baking this information into the actual HTML, an alternative would be to use a HTTP header. This idea was considered and ultimately was rejected because it would make mirrors have to start modifying headers instead of being able to operate as a "dumb" HTTP server of files. Using an URL ------------ Another traditional mechanism for versioning APIs is to bake it into the URL, something like ``/1.0/simplee/`` or so. This works well for major version changes where olders clients are not expected to be capable of continuing to use it, but it is not well suited to minor version bumps, particularly when the version numbers can be viewed as largely advisory for end users. Copyright ========= This document is placed in the public domain or under the CC0-1.0-Universal license, whichever is more permissive. .. Local Variables: mode: indented-text indent-tabs-mode: nil sentence-end-double-space: t fill-column: 70 coding: utf-8 End: