search

pypi / support

Issue tracker for support requests related to using https://pypi.org
94 stars 48 forks source link

PEP 541 Request: pykalman #3196

Open mbalatsko opened 12 months ago

mbalatsko commented 12 months ago

Project to be claimed

pykalman: https://pypi.org/project/pykalman

Your PyPI username

mbalatsko: https://pypi.org/user/mbalatsko

Reasons for the request

The last release was in 2013, and yet the package has some bugs to fix. The author is not responsive on issues and PR in the original repo: https://github.com/pykalman/pykalman

Maintenance or replacement?

Maintenance

Source code repositories URLs

Original: https://github.com/pykalman/pykalman My fork: https://github.com/pybardo/pykalman

I have already published a fork under a different name, but in https://github.com/sktime/sktime/pull/5277 it was mentioned that PEP 541 exists, and I believe it is a better way to go.

Contact and additional research

Using issues and PRs and via email duckworthd@gmail.com, pykalman@gmail.com

Code of Conduct

fkiraly commented 12 months ago

Just in case, it may make sense to ping @duckworthd, @gliptak, @nils-werner, @pierre-haessig, @jonathanng (all the contributors based on pykalman GitHub commit history)

pierre-haessig commented 12 months ago

Thanks for reaching me. In fact, I only used pykalman once for a short experiment back in 2015. Indeed Github remembers (better than I) that I made a contribution, but it was minor (fixing a docstring).

I didn't know of PEP 541 before now, but it's good that this procedure exists.

Among the criteria for having an Abandoned projects, it seems that the last two criteria are met (no releases, no repo activity). Second, it appears to me that @mbalatsko has demonstrated the continued maintenance criteria of Continued maintenance of an abandoned project with its forks https://github.com/pybardo/pykalman.

So, the only item which is not clearly validated to me is "owner not reachable" one. I see in the top message that emails were sent to:

but how long ago? Also, there is a @duckworthd LinkedIn account which may be worth trying to reach.

Final thought: if the PyPI ownership gets transfered, there would be still the issue of the documentation at https://pykalman.github.io/.

fkiraly commented 12 months ago

Final thought: if the PyPI ownership gets transfered, there would be still the issue of the documentation at https://pykalman.github.io/.

Perhaps @duckworthd might be kind enough to transfer both pypi project and GitHub repo himself if he agrees that the original project is no longer maintained. That would solve the problem with the documentation, as well as the problem with the existing issues and bug reports potentially existing in two places.

duckworthd commented 12 months ago

Hi all,

Daniel here. Indeed, I lack the cycles to actively maintain this project, and I'd be happy to pass the keys on to someone more active than I.

Daniel

Franz Király @.***> schrieb am Sa., 23. Sept. 2023, 10:25:

Final thought: if the PyPI ownership gets transfered, there would be still the issue of the documentation at https://pykalman.github.io/.

Perhaps @duckworthd https://github.com/duckworthd might be kind enough to transfer both pypi project and GitHub repo himself if he agrees that the original project is no longer maintained. That would solve the problem with the documentation, as well as the problem with the existing issues and bug reports potentially existing in two places.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/pypi/support/issues/3196#issuecomment-1732252534, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEY4PCR63PX5IFJDFB2Y5DX32MGXANCNFSM6AAAAAA47N4Y6E . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

mbalatsko commented 12 months ago

@duckworthd fantastic! I’d be happy to continue this package maintainance and development, as I have already started in the fork! And if you are ok with passing the keys to me, I believe that you don’t have to transfer GitHub repository, just making me admin would be enough. But on PyPI I’m not sure about shared ownership, I believe there transfer should be done. Both on GitHub and PyPI I have the same username: mbalatsko

mbalatsko commented 11 months ago

@duckworthd Daniel, do you think you will have time to get to it sometime?

pykalman commented 11 months ago

Hi @mbalatsko,

I have invited you to be a maintainer of this repo, the accompanying documentation repo, and the PyPI project. You are now a maintainer!

Daniel

fkiraly commented 6 months ago

@duckworthd, @pykalman, may I kindly request transfer to me?

pykalman is not a central dependency of sktime, but the hassle with multiple forks and releases is more work than me maintaining pykalman itself, and properly replying to issues and pull requests.

Attempts to contact current owners - now including @mbalatsko, who is unresponsive since almost half a year - are documented here: https://github.com/sktime/sktime/pull/6114

fkiraly commented 6 months ago

alright - well, closing this issue is a reaction.

In that case, kindly let me know if you need help maintaining pykalman.

mbalatsko commented 6 months ago

@fkiraly Unfortunately all transfer processes went on for too long and I never got permission to publish the package to Pypi. I have only a contributor role there. I wanted to add you as a contributor at least on Github, but it seems that I do not have permissions for it either, so you would need to wait for @duckworthd reaction. However, I'm sorry to be responsive for a long time and willing to help get some changes through faster. If you need to have some fix urgently as part of pykalman, I can add you as admin to pykalman-bardo, where you could merge it and get through to release.

fkiraly commented 6 months ago

Unfortunately all transfer processes went on for too long and I never got permission to publish the package to Pypi. I have only a contributor role there.

Hm, but isn't that sufficient to publish new versions of the package? This is not a full transfer, it does not give access to the most destructive actions, but a maintainer position gives you the right to publish new versions: image

I have invited you to be a maintainer of this repo, the accompanying documentation repo, and the PyPI project. You are now a maintainer!

As a maintainer, on GitHub, you can review/merge PR and reply to issues. Perhaps @duckworthd wanted to see whether you are actually going to do that.

The first - imo pressing - thing to do would be to respond to authors of PRs, merge the python 3.11/3.12 fix (from either of multiple sources), and get started with some reviews?

fkiraly commented 6 months ago

and I never got permission to publish the package to Pypi

I think this is an incorrect statement. I can see you being a maintainer on pypi, this allows you to publish new versions: image

mbalatsko commented 6 months ago

Interesting that PyPi UI does not reflect at all that I can upload something. But you are probably right. Then I can reflect changes from bardo repository to main one. And then I'll be willing to give up all permissions as I'm no longer interested in maintenance. @fkiraly are there any other issues except Py 3.11/12 compatibility and masked array are not supported in linalg.solve you want to see resolved? I could include everything to one release

fkiraly commented 6 months ago

@fkiraly are there any other issues except Py 3.11/12 compatibility and masked array are not supported inlinalg.solve` you want to see resolved?

Well, for sktime these would be the ones - though you may like to have a look at the PR and check what the various other contributors are trying to merge?

As said, let me know if I can help!

mbalatsko commented 6 months ago

I'll find time for that by the end of the week and let you know

fkiraly commented 6 months ago

And then I'll be willing to give up all permissions as I'm no longer interested in maintenance.

In that case, I'd request a transfer to me, @duckworthd, @pykalman.

In case you're hesitant, I'm happy to deal with the entire backlog of pull requests and issue responses on a maintainer basis, to prove my commitment to continued maintenance, before you make me admin.

fkiraly commented 6 months ago

any update on this, @mbalatsko, @duckworthd, @pykalman?

fkiraly commented 6 months ago

To summarize state of discussion so far, @duckworthd, @gliptak, @nils-werner, @pierre-haessig, @jonathanng:

Therefore, I think the PEP 541 condition on "abandoned" is satisfied, since there hasn't been any communication by the still-current owners, @duckworthd, since October 2023, which is far beyond the waiting time period required in PEP 541.

The last release of pykalman was 9 years ago, and sktime (another project I maintain) has a significant (but not critical) dependency on pykalman.

Based on the above, I'd request a transfer to me.

As stated, I am happy to take on maintenance, and will ensure continued existence under permissive license, and backlog getting addressed.

fkiraly commented 3 months ago

Opened a new PEP 541 request: https://github.com/pypi/support/issues/4142