Closed andreyvelich closed 3 weeks ago
Totals | |
---|---|
Change from base Build 11507477280: | 0.0% |
Covered Lines: | 77 |
Relevant Lines: | 77 |
Could you please explain why we use
/sdk/python/kubeflow
for SDK v1 but/sdk_v2/kubeflow
for SDK v2?I guess, it might be better if we make the dir structure consistent with v1. WDYT👀 @andreyvelich
Let's revisit the directory structure later. I would not like to block Client implementation. @andreyvelich, Could you open an issue or align the v2 directory structure with the v1 one?
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: tenzen-y
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
The pull request process is described here
@Electronic-Waste @tenzen-y Actually, I did this directory on purpose.
Since we don't have plans to introduce SDK in other languages (e.g. Java), we don't need to have python
sub-folder.
@Electronic-Waste @tenzen-y Actually, I did this directory on purpose. Since we don't have plans to introduce SDK in other languages (e.g. Java), we don't need to have
python
sub-folder.
If there are not any directory structure limitations for PyPI, I'm ok with the current one.
@tenzen-y No, PyPI doesn't have any limitations. As you can see, we just package our kubeflow
dir under sdk_v2
: https://github.com/kubeflow/training-operator/blob/master/sdk_v2/pyproject.toml#L41
@tenzen-y No, PyPI doesn't have any limitations. As you can see, we just package our
kubeflow
dir undersdk_v2
: https://github.com/kubeflow/training-operator/blob/master/sdk_v2/pyproject.toml#L41
Alright. In that case, I'm ok with the current directory structure.
Part of: https://github.com/kubeflow/training-operator/issues/2216.
I generated
kubeflow-training
Python SDK for Training V2 APIs. Please let me know what do you think about dir structure andpyproject.toml
for the SDK./assign @kubeflow/wg-training-leads @varshaprasad96 @akshaychitneni @shravan-achar @deepanker13 @helenxie-bit @Electronic-Waste @saileshd1402 @droctothorpe