search

AstraZeneca / chemicalx

A PyTorch and TorchDrug based deep learning library for drug pair scoring. (KDD 2022)
https://chemicalx.readthedocs.io
Apache License 2.0
700 stars 89 forks source link

Is this repo dead? Improve communication of its status #105

Open cthoyt opened 1 year ago

cthoyt commented 1 year ago

I'm under the impression that AstraZeneca isn't allocating resources to maintaining this repository or answering questions. Is this correct?

I don't feel comfortable answering questions or maintaining this as long as it lives in the AstraZeneca namespace and I'm not being paid for consulting.

I don't recall anyone else being active in the repository besides minor model-specific contributions pre-publication. If it's the case that AZ doesn't have any plans for this, then I think we should minimally put a notice on the README saying so and also potentially archive this repository.

mughetto commented 1 year ago

Hi Charlie,

Thanks for asking about communications, it’s a very good question. Let me try to answer.

As you may be aware, this project has been driven by someone who now has left AZ and having undergone internal changes, we’ve had less time to dedicate to open source. With the main AZ author leaving, it seems no one has been actively monitoring issues and we’d like to apologize to the reporters for that.

Today we’re not using this repo actively, there are ideas floating around but no resources committed to it. With this being said, it doesn’t mean we should archive it as we still believe it can spark new ideas from the community. We are a team that supports open source and we hope to dedicate more time to it in the future but it may not happen overnight.

We thank you for your contributions and do not expect you to maintain it going forwards, all contributions have always been on a voluntary basis. We would also like to emphasize that our team has contributed significantly to the development and we will resolve the future of this repository in due course.

cthoyt commented 9 months ago

@mughetto thanks for clarifying. We can close this issue if we can add some version of that text to the top of the README