I've spent the last couple of weeks experimenting with converting some work-related modules to use Poetry, and although I immediately loved a few of the improvements, there are a few drawbacks that weren't immediately obvious.

Chiefly, the inability of the combination of poetry and pip to create editable installs of a module is a drag. Using "poetry shell" is ok, but many of the users of the module I maintain are accustomed to using pipenv or plain old virtualenvs and I'm as loathe to try to induce them to use some other tool for this as I would be if the tables were turned.

The other more serious issue is that the modules I take care of are internal things in a private PyPI repository, and poetry unfortunately has a few bugs in this area. Working fixes are in PRs that have been sitting for months, and I've attempted to contact what I think is the project maintainer without any response. In my opinion, that's absolutely fine; this is a volunteer effort, I certainly don't expect the volunteers to do heroics to support me, and I can come up with some way of getting the patches that I need into the tool.

But at the same time, the ideal tool for dealing with Python packaging is going to need to be able to coordinate this sort of stuff with the pip maintainers, and to have some mechanism to support corporate users and all that boring stuff. I want to be enthusiastic about this one because it definitely seems to knock off a lot of sharp corners in python packaging, but I'm not sure if its got legs.