-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
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.
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
overhaul infrastructure #579
Conversation
pyproject.toml
Outdated
{ name = "Martin Fleischmann", email = "martin@martinfleischmann.net" }, | ||
{ name = "Eli Knaap", email = "ek@knaaptime.com" }, | ||
{ name = "Serge Rey", email = "sjsrey@gmail.com" }, | ||
{ name = "Levi Wolf", email = "levi.john.wolf@gmail.com" }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is the selection logic here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
no idea. its who was in base. hoping reviewers have opinions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In geopandas, in "authors"
is only Kelsey Jordahl who founded the project, no one else. Maybe that would be the solution here as well? So only @sjsrey? Just a suggestion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
most of the other packages have two, so i think its probably appropriate to have it be serge and levi. I'll change it to that unless they think otherwise
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I don't know the history here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
well i get the logic, but maybe its a question that should be revisited occasionally instead of solved once. Serge, Ran and I were once the authors of spopt, but now it makes more sense for the authors to be James and Xin. ...but also a lot of the code was ported over from region and originally written by juanca, serge, and aleks. So its tricky
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i'd probably characterize it as brute force rather than elegance, but sometimes any solution is preferable to nothing :P. By using founders as a replacement for authors, we're just saying our answer is to not address the question. That's fine, but it's a particular position (that assigning authorship is too hard to handle).
to throw out another few analogies, Guido is the author of Python, but at this point im sure he's the author of almost nothing in stdlib. Serge and Luc will forever be the authors of PySAL, but i think of authorship among the subpackages as additive, so the 'authors' are the respective contribution trees
i also think of pysal a bit like an edited handbook on spatial analytical methods. Serge and Luc are the editors of the handbook, and they wrote several chapters of the first edition. Many editions are pretty similar, where the same authors update their chapters in light of new evidence and techniques. But the content of the collection changes a bit over time as the discipline evolves and some of the authors rotate out, so chapters are eventually written by others. The subpackages in pysal are like the chapters, and lib is maybe the introduction to the series.
i think theres also an argument that the four of us sat down, scoped out, wrote, and revised this draft of the package (the graph-based version anyway), which makes us the authors of this version of the chapter. Eventually somebody else will probably write a new draft, at which point they assume 'authorship' (but we will always be in the contributor tree (and picked up by the zotero citation, for whatever thats worth)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that sounds reasonable. I think it's your call at this point @knaaptime.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i'm the resident dev with a community planning degree, so its only my job to raise questions. Answers are for the community :P. But jokes aside i'd probably just leave it at serge and levi
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm fine with any solution. Just didn't want to exclude someone if we decide to name authors based on contributions. FYI, pandas has just Pandas development team as authors.
Co-authored-by: James Gaboardi <jgaboardi@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Martin Fleischmann <martin@martinfleischmann.net>
We need to add |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #579 +/- ##
=======================================
+ Coverage 82.4% 83.9% +1.5%
=======================================
Files 129 128 -1
Lines 15358 15021 -337
=======================================
- Hits 12655 12610 -45
+ Misses 2703 2411 -292 |
Co-authored-by: James Gaboardi <jgaboardi@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One minor nit. Otherwise looks good!
.github/workflows/unittests.yml
Outdated
name: libpysal-codecov | ||
|
||
steps: | ||
- uses: actions/checkout@v2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that the latest is v4 now (am on phone now)
Are we good to merge for now then, or are we waiting for something else? |
Two approvals are in and authorship can be discussed in the dev call and changed later if needed. Lgtm |
No description provided.