Unify version control towards `uv.lock`

[samuelshng]

Problem / Motivation

For Python package versioning, currently there are multiple sources of truth which can be confusing:

• requirements.txt
• requirements-mcp.txt
• pyproject.toml + uv.lock

Proposed Solution

Since pyproject.toml + uv.lock is more reproducible, I propose sunsetting requirements.txt and requirements-mcp.txt to unify towards keeping just uv. Keep in mind this involves:

• Bringing pyproject.toml up to date with latest additions to requirements.txt and requirements-mcp.txt, if applicable (the MCP dependencies is already declared as extras in pyproject.toml)
• Update Dockerfiles to use uv
• Update all documentations to reflect the switch

[kwalus]

Thanks — we do want to keep moving in this direction.

Current status: this is partially improved, but not fully complete in 0.6.x yet. The public repo is already using pyproject.toml + uv.lock more seriously, and CI is running through uv, but we still have compatibility-era files and docs (requirements.txt, requirements-mcp.txt, and some install guidance) that have not been fully removed.

Plan:

1. Keep the current compatibility paths available through the 0.6.x line so we do not create unnecessary install churn right after the public release.
2. In parallel, finish auditing dependency parity so pyproject.toml + uv.lock are the clear source of truth.
3. Update remaining docs, Docker/setup paths, and install guidance to prefer the unified uv workflow.
4. Remove the old requirements-file path once parity and docs are clean.

Target: fully resolve this for 0.7.0.

So I’m leaving this issue open as the tracking item for that cleanup rather than closing it prematurely.