You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I propose adopting pip-tools as a way to more flexibly and reliably manage the contents in requirements.txt.
Current Situation
Right now the requirements are managed in a bit of a hard to use manner and this is likely a hinderance to folks attempting to work on native Mac support (See #154 and #184).
The codebase today does not have a mechanism to define and or test on different platforms, effectively leaving it CUDA-only. There is also not a straightforward way to define tests and requirements against different python or CUDA versions.
I propose adopting pip-tools as a way to more flexibly and reliably manage the contents in requirements.txt.
Current Situation
Right now the requirements are managed in a bit of a hard to use manner and this is likely a hinderance to folks attempting to work on native Mac support (See #154 and #184).
The codebase today does not have a mechanism to define and or test on different platforms, effectively leaving it CUDA-only. There is also not a straightforward way to define tests and requirements against different python or CUDA versions.
The dependencies are managed between the ./requirements/p2.txt (I have a proposed simplification at #193) and along the path to running at test as defined in https://github.com/Stability-AI/generative-models/blob/main/pyproject.toml#L45
Rationale
Only specifying one pip-freeze produced requirements file has a number of downsides:
Possible Downsides and Tradeoffs
Alternatives Considered
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: