poetry refactoring about requests-html

[surister]

Hey, sorry for the late respond, just saw your pull request, I see what you are doing but just throwing in 10 tools without proper discussion/usage doesn't bode well with me. Don't get me wrong, I can see myself implementing some of these tools in the near future, but I'd need to properly see/analyze every tool and it'll take some time to approve a PR of this size, it'll actually be faster if the scope is smaller

[gpongelli]

Hey, sorry for the late respond, just saw your pull request, I see what you are doing but just throwing in 10 tools without proper discussion/usage doesn't bode well with me. Don't get me wrong, I can see myself implementing some of these tools in the near future, but I'd need to properly see/analyze every tool and it'll take some time to approve a PR of this size, it'll actually be faster if the scope is smaller

do you prefer a PR per tool listed above ?

Consider that #544 only adds poetry in place of pipfile & setup.py, the other tools are NOT (and will not be) in that PR.

[aehlke]

this great effort stalled out because the PR is too large?

[gpongelli]

this great effort stalled out because the PR is too large?

Mostly yes.
On the other side, upgrading to poetry needs also a package structure, instead of the actual single module; this also led to a breaking change for users that need a different import call, that’s why I propose also a MAJOR version bump (that could be easily managed with one tool of the above list).

My PR does only refactor the single module to a packaged structure with separated modules, and this seems to be huge effort to review.

All the tools listed in description are NOT included in this PR, I used to work with them in my packages so, after this PR with poetry will be merged, it became easier to add them to improve whole package quality (and also reduce maintainer stress).

I respect maintainer opinion, so poetry PR will remain in draft until there’s no interest on it from users/maintainers/anyone.

@aehlke thanks for the interest on this discussion