cdeil
commented
6 years ago @astrofrog - Thanks for the review.
Well, at http://www.astropy.org/affiliated/ there's just pyregion and regions listed in a table, with zero guidance on which one to use. The package docs of each explain the situation though, and cross-package infos like "new use should use regions, not pyregion" don't really fit with the table format at http://www.astropy.org/affiliated/ .
So probably the way it is now is the best we can do. Closing this issue.
This package has been re-reviewed by the Astropy coordination committee in relation to the Astropy affiliated package ecosystem.
We have adopted a review process for affiliated package that includes assigning quantitative ‘scores’ (red/orange/green) for different categories of review. You can read up more about this process here. (This document, currently in Google Docs, will be moved to the documentation in the near future.) For each of the categories below we have listed the score and have included some comments when the score is not green.
Summary/Decision: Things are looking good, and this package meets the review criteria for affiliated packages, so we are happy to confirm that we'll be listing your package as an affiliated package! Keep up the good work, and we encourage you to improve on the areas above that weren't “green” yet.
If you agree with the above review, please feel free to close this issue. If you have any follow-up questions or disagree with any of the comments above, leave a comment and we can discuss it here. At any point in future you can request a re-review of the package if you believe any of the scores should be updated - contact the coordination committee, and we’ll do a new review. Note that we are in the process of redesigning the http://affiliated.astropy.org page to show these scores (but not the comments). Finally, please keep the title of this issue as-is (“Astropy Affiliated Package Review”) to make it easy to search for affiliated package reviews in future.