Open flying-sheep opened 2 years ago
I agree that scanpydoc could have these features (and renamed to scversedoc)
This could also include the custom linkcode functions to link source out to github https://github.com/scverse/cookiecutter-scverse/issues/103
Is it that bad to have a bit of vendored code, especially with template sync in place?
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 19:59, Adam Gayoso @.***> wrote:
I agree that scanpydoc could have these features (and renamed to scversedoc)
This could also include the custom linkcode functions to link source out to github #103 https://github.com/scverse/cookiecutter-scverse/issues/103
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/scverse/cookiecutter-scverse/issues/113#issuecomment-1444267856, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABVZRV73UDDUBVSXGCF6PILWZEAJ7ANCNFSM6AAAAAARM5FD3I . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
Is it that bad to have a bit of vendored code, especially with template sync in place?
This is also a good point. I'm indifferent. Package makes it easier for people to use without using the template.
I believe minimizing boilerplate and relying just on Git (for your project specific settings) and dependencies (for things maintained by other people) simplifies things. Sure, after learning Git and Python dependency management, some people also want to learn cruft and configure it to deal with boilerplate, but how many of our users are that?
What do you think? How realistic is it that our users will use template sync?
What do you think? How realistic is it that our users will use template sync?
In practice, quite a few people get lazy with updating it. Nevertheless, these people also wouldn't update their scverse-doc dependencies.
But that shouldn't stop us from using any option
100 did this:
why? shared code should live in a package. let’s revert that part and improve scanpydoc to enjoy shared goodness.