Closed weaverba137 closed 9 years ago
I agree that we should have tagged versions, though I don't think we want to have tar file releases. What do others think?
I would be happy with that.
I'm hoping that as I move more functionality into astropy-helpers, and add support for something like d2to1, then most of what constitutes the package template will be moot, short of a demonstration of how to organize a package.
That's sort of my goal, anyway. So I'm not sure how much value there really is in this idea--the package template is a guideline. Not something to be strictly adhered to (it's an unfortunate accident that some of the "helpers" provided by Astropy are complex enough that they will break if you don't organize your setup.py just so, but I'm hoping to hide most of that away).
@embray - that would be nice.
I opened #95 so this can be closed.
@weaverba137 - there is now a tagged version! :)
...because there are no versions! I'd like to be able to say 'my affiliated package is compliant with package-template/v0.1.0'.
Are there plans to tag package-template at some point? Also, since all development appears to be happening on the master branch (side question: what is the minor-fixes branch?), master isn't stable enough to target as the template for affiliated packages.
Lately, I've stopped tracking package-template, & instead just mimic astropy itself. For example, package-template doesn't have wheels support in the master branch yet.