upkeep: gains `lifecycle` badge

[github-actions[bot]]

Docker build status

Commit time	Git sha	Image
2024-04-17T12:22:27Z	377d0657703943a112eb1e760fb11052325e5afb	ghcr.io/rmi-pacta/workflow.factset:pr-68

History

| Commit time | Git sha | Image | | :------------------- | :--------------------------------------- | :--------------------------------------- | | 2024-04-17T12:22:27Z | 377d0657703943a112eb1e760fb11052325e5afb | ghcr.io/rmi-pacta/workflow.factset:pr-68 |

History JSON

`[{"commit_time":"2024-04-17T12:22:27Z","git_sha":"377d0657703943a112eb1e760fb11052325e5afb","image":"ghcr.io/rmi-pacta/workflow.factset:pr-68"}]`

[jdhoffa]

No reason!

My default is experimental, but if you would prefer stable/ maturing, then happy to do that :-)

[AlexAxthelm]

I think so. I don't expect many changes moving forward, and all the stuff in the open issues is mostly improvements, not breaking changes

[jdhoffa]

I updated it to "maturing" in line with e.g. https://github.com/RMI-PACTA/r2dii.data

I don't think we even actually have a single "stable" tagged repository yet. not saying we "shouldn't", but I think this is all pending a broader discussion on what lifecycle actually refers to

Relates to https://github.com/RMI-PACTA/practices/issues/6

[AlexAxthelm]

I do believe that "maturing" is a deprecated lifecycle stage, according to their docs.

[jdhoffa]

I do believe that "maturing" is a deprecated lifecycle stage, according to their docs.

Ah yes, I remember reading that.

I'll bump the other "maturing" repos to "stable" then :-)