Ergonomic, hermetic, user-friendly software build system for Python, Go, Java, Kotlin, Protobuf, Scala, Shell. Pants lets you fearlessly scale up your codebase!

Pants

I couldve set os.environ[] in the reducer python script, but my understanding was that the pex is expanded before running the script

Where do we currently stand on the python target resources mess?

Right now there are 3 ways to specify resources: I. Depend on a resources() target in `dependencies=`, II. Depend on a resources() target in `resource_targets=` and III. An inline fileset in `resources=`.

(I’m not sure if I. actually works with python today)

But it seems like I should be the canonical way, and II and III should be deprecated, no?

I saw at least one ticket claiming that dealing with this right now is not desirable

Something around <https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/issues/3560>

<https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/issues/3506>

```A big push in the area of deprecating resources isn't a good idea right now, because in the engine experiments, it became pretty clear that you don't actually need target types once you're consuming products by type... could just have a target with both python and resources sources to resolve this.```

hm... i think that i disagree with myself!

i don't think target inheritance is going away anytime soon, and so the `Resources` target is going to continue to exist

in which case, requesting "a Classpath for each of my dependencies" or "a PEX for each of my dependencies" makes total sense

(assuming a PEX containing only resources is sensible...?)

<@U051221NF> : i think where that was coming from was a desire to push strongly toward the "Target as untyped holder of  typed config"... but we've been heading less strongly in that direction

I don’t think this would be a tricky change

Basically I don’t want the new python pipeline to have to deal with weird stuff