Skip to content

Add specreduce as a coordinated package #489

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
dhomeier merged 2 commits into from
Jun 24, 2022
Merged

Add specreduce as a coordinated package #489

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
0eea331
add specreduce
eteq May 5, 2022
462ec06
Update affiliated/registry.json
eteq Jun 2, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
22 changes: 21 additions & 1 deletion affiliated/registry.json
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@
"home_url": "https://specutils.readthedocs.io",
"repo_url": "https://github.com/astropy/specutils",
"pypi_name": "specutils",
"description": "Affiliated package for analysis tools and basic data types of astronomical spectra.",
"description": "Coordinated package for analysis tools and basic data types of astronomical spectra.",
"image": null,
"coordinated": true,
"review": {
Expand All @@ -136,6 +136,26 @@
"last-updated": "2018-12-04"
}
},
{
"name": "specreduce",
"maintainer": "Tim Pickering and Erik Tollerud",
"stable": false,
"home_url": "https://specreduce.readthedocs.io",
"repo_url": "https://github.com/astropy/specreduce",
"pypi_name": "specreduce",
"description": "Coordinated package to provide a data reduction toolkit for optical and infrared spectroscopy, on which applications such as pipeline processes for specific instruments can be built.",
"image": null,
"coordinated": true,
"review": {
"functionality": "General package",
"ecointegration": "Good",
"documentation": "Partial",

@dhomeier dhomeier May 6, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The package should have instructions about citing (CITATION file), which we've been asking affiliated packages to add, and made mandatory now. (Correction: per the reviewer instructions it is still only required for attaining Green level, but still asking for it for coordinated status ;-).

Two further potential low-barrier improvements are adding a more visible RTD link in the "About" tab, and setting up an accessible RTD build in the CI (in addition to the doctest task).

"testing": "Partial",

@dhomeier dhomeier May 6, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks a bit odd seeing this in the same category as e.g. specutils with 21 vs. some 500 CI tests. Which is not to say I see it as a show-stopper here, so it should stay Orange. I guess I'd rather place specutils at Yellow, but with only so many levels, things can probably stay as they are. Or is it time to promote specutils to Green – @pllim, I think you have some experience with unexpected/uncovered bugs there?

@pllim pllim May 6, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Re: specutils -- Re-reviewing it should be a separate issue?

@dhomeier dhomeier May 6, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure. Or maybe just a PR to update the testing field (and perhaps documentation as well)? I'd say it is now at least well above

Reasonable documentation (which could be a very well written README), installation instructions and at least one usage example, but some parts missing.

@pllim pllim May 6, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would like specutils maintainers to comment: @nmearl @rosteen @keflavich @eteq (as listed on the repo)

"devstatus": "Heavy development",
"python3": "Yes",
"last-updated": "2022-05-05"

@dhomeier dhomeier May 6, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just realised that I have always taken this (being the other field that is not pre-filled or documented in the review guidelines) to mean the last package update, as an indicator of development activity. But that would of course not stay up to date for very long in most cases; OTOH review entries are not very frequently updated either...)
Anyway makes no practical difference here, or in the last package entry where I may have filled it incorrectly.

}
},
{
"name": "astroquery",
"maintainer": "Adam Ginsburg and Brigitta Sipőcz <[email protected]>",
Expand Down