Open reshamas opened 1 year ago
I don't think most will be interested in the historical location of notebooks. I would remove them. Historical commits should not be of much interest where notebooks are concerned.
I also think we should not list that. Content on the website should be focused on readers/visitors. Authorship is only useful to them if they want to cite the notebook (which is why we eventually agreed to have the section at the end and not listing authors at the top nor in the right sidebar next to the tags) and to make sure we give credit to everyone who contributes. I think the fact that the notebook was moved from pymc to pymc-examples repo is not relevant to either case.
The examples in https://docs.pymc.io/en/latest/contributing/jupyter_style.html#authorship-and-attribution are also data points against this. We use the pymc#PRNUMBER
or pymc-examples#PRNUMBER
formatting when linking to the relevant PRs and both examples list PRs in the two repos, but neither mentions the move from one repo to another.
Notebook title: generally, most Notebook url: generally, most
Issue description
In updating the notebooks and the "Author" section, I have been adding this information:
Some notebooks have been merged with this updates, and other(s) are under discussion. See: https://github.com/pymc-devs/pymc-examples/pull/426/files#r984794260
@OriolAbril
@reshamas:
Note
Can we discuss and agree on a consistent rule?