Repository navigation
Replies: 2 comments
|
I do not think this makes sense because:
So the integration is an overhead which brings from my perspective no benefit at the moment. |
0 replies
|
I don't think adding another abstraction is good, too many external deps. The commands are pretty basic and all in the docs. |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
I’d like to propose adding a
justfileto provide a consistent interface for common development commands.The project would continue using
uvfor Python and dependency management.justwould only act as a lightweight task runner on top of the existing commands.Example
This would allow contributors to use short, discoverable commands:
just install just test just checkAvailable tasks can be listed with:
Benefits over using
uvcommands directlyUsing
uvdirectly is currently simple and may remain sufficient. However, ajustfilecould:just check;uvwould still handle environments, dependencies, and command execution.justwould not replace it.Benefits over a
MakefileA
Makefilecould provide similar aliases, butjustis designed specifically as a command runner rather than a build system.Compared with
make,justgenerally offers:just --list;For example, both could define a test task, but the
justfileremains focused on commands:Trade-offs
The main downside is that contributors need to install an additional tool. All underlying
uvcommands should therefore remain documented and usable withoutjust.The
justfileshould remain a convenience layer rather than a requirement for using the project.Installing
justmacOS
Windows
Using Winget:
Linux
Depending on the distribution:
Alternatively, install it with Cargo:
Questions
justfilebe useful at the current size of the project?just check, or should it continue using the underlying commands directly?justbe optional, with the equivalentuvcommands documented alongside it?All reactions