search

planetarypy / TC

PlanetaryPy Project Technical Committee
https://planetarypy.org/
1 stars 2 forks source link

What should we focus on first? #3

Closed rbeyer closed 4 years ago

rbeyer commented 4 years ago

I feel like the title says it all.

However, I have a suggestion: I think we should pick a package, and make it planetarypy compliant (whatever we define that to be), and then incorporate it as the first planetarypy package. This will make us conform to our own standards, before we admit it to the project. And then we can go through the process of including it in planetarypy which will work out additional kinks.

I think we also need to accept that the existing repos in the planetarypy GitHub org are not automatically members of the planetarypy package (they have a grandfathered status, clearly), however, I think they are excellent first candidates for this process.

In fact, I think the pvl library would be a great first candidate.

michaelaye commented 4 years ago

PRO to start with pvl: Trevor seems to be eager to help.

CON: It feels like a very slow start for me, considering how much, I would consider, useful stuff is out there.

Let's discuss...

michaelaye commented 4 years ago

The TC expressed the wish to start with a blank canvas, so I guess the next question is, if we start with PVL, we need to figure out if it should stay an AP (affiliated package) or become core. Do we need another GH issue to start that battle or here is fine?

rbeyer commented 4 years ago

I think that's a downstream question. If we want to use pvl as our test, then let's work on shaping it into an 'Affiliated Package.' Once it passes that bar, then we can discuss whether it stays that way or gets pulled into planetarypy. One step at a time.

So maybe the first thing we really should do is build something like https://github.com/astropy/package-template for planetarypy

rbeyer commented 4 years ago

In our meeting today, we agreed that the first 'code' that we build should, indeed, be a package template for Affiliated Packages. Michael volunteered to either get a new repo going, or use the existing cookiecutter-pypackage repo (but I think it has an awkward name, I know why it is named this way, I just like the cleaner 'package-template').

rbeyer commented 4 years ago

The package-template is moving along.

I want to reactivate this and ask about affiliated packages, and see if folks have an opinion here. I think we're close to being able to reasonably manage our first affiliated package application. Is there anything that would prevent us from taking an application and attempting to run the review machine?

rbeyer commented 4 years ago

At the April Meeting we decided that we could submit pvl and run the process. Since we are now "doing things" this Issue can now be closed.