Closed joshwlambert closed 2 months ago
As a reminder for when I start working on this, this post reflects exactly my experience in other packages, and summarizes what I explained above:
https://mastodon.social/@coolbutuseless@fosstodon.org/110587094854201080
I have been down paths of creating custom plots with lots of arguments. It got painful quickly, as it diverged from what people already understood with {ggplot2}.
Instead I created a few custom geoms/stats, then it was just a case of telling people:
"You know ggplot. Here are our in-house custom geoms. Facets and everything else work the same. Go for it!"
Name | Link |
---|---|
Latest commit | 9feea8cb15d64c8be6ea98710f77a8ae45d01248 |
Latest deploy log | https://app.netlify.com/sites/playful-gelato-7892ba/deploys/660bc3dabe6e140008afd59e |
Deploy Preview | https://deploy-preview-44--playful-gelato-7892ba.netlify.app |
Preview on mobile | Toggle QR Code...Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link. |
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.
Hi - @joshwlambert and I worked on substantially revising this page and re-requested reviews on the new version. Would be great if you could have a look at the new and improved page for the plotting functionality.
PS: I'll fix the markdownlint of course :-)
Before I forget: we need to add @chartgerink in the CONTRIBUTORS.txt
list before merging this PR.
Thanks @Bisaloo - will revise after @TimTaylor indicates their points as well. I tried to incorporate your explanation without it becoming an exposé on the technical details, but I understand I cut out a bit too much 😅 I'll retry to find the balance.
Thanks @Bisaloo - will revise after @TimTaylor indicates their points as well. I tried to incorporate your explanation without it becoming an exposé on the technical details, but I understand I cut out a bit too much 😅 I'll retry to find the balance.
Yes, that's a fine line. A couple of thoughts on this:
I am not sure how to resolve the final issues at the moment. This PR has been open for 10 months, so I started working on it in an attempt to close it out. When a PR/issue is open for this long my experience tells me it is unlikely to be merged/resolved for variable reasons (e.g., context changes, unsatisfying results, open discussion points).
As a result, I now am tending towards cutting the reasoning+alternatives bits to balance out the page (they might also work better in a blog post as @Bisaloo suggested). Once cut, the whole page is <10 lines and as such (potentially) does not really warrant an entire page anymore.
I also notice I get the gist of the technical discussion but writing for it in a balanced manner is more difficult for me 😅 I wonder what best to do at the moment to get this to a mergeable state, because I suspect if we do not do this now this PR will simply go stale and not get merged at all.
Okay, it seems like this pull request isn't going anywhere. It's been stale for over a month with no clear path to merging.
To prevent more time being sunk into this, I am closing it until the need arises again to address this issue.
This PR adds a package scope page to the blueprints document. This page contains information around the use of plotting functions, plotting in vignettes and dependencies.
This PR relates to #7.