Repository navigation
docs: recommend the orjson extra next to logging on GIL builds - #354
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #339.
The issue asked to check first whether a dependency marker can skip orjson on free-threaded builds. As of 2026-10-28 none can:
sys.abiflags. The only marker added since PEP 508 isextras/dependency_groupsfor lock files.sys_abi_featureswith agil-enabledvalue, is still a Draft. Its only implementation is a fork ofpackagingand a patched pip, and it expects tool support to take months or years after acceptance.So the issue's fallback applies.
loggingand the*-allextras stay as they are, anddocs/introduction/installation.mdnow recommends adding[orjson]on GIL builds, with the 2 µs per-call figure from the issue's measurement. The sentence carries the reason inline instead of linking ADR-0004, becausedocs/adr/is excluded from the docs site.PEP 780's acceptance plus pip and uv support would be the trigger to revisit ADR-0004's orjson half. This PR doesn't add that to the ADR.
Verified:
just docs-build(strict) passes.