-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 43
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
Have a roadmap to re-review existing affiliated packages #139
Comments
I agree with this! |
Sorted the existing affiliated packaged (not coordinated) by last updated. Is this a good place to start, by going down this list?
p.s. Found a bug! astropy/astropy#10823 Update: Changed |
What does "last updated" mean? |
Not sure... Maybe CoCo knows? |
I only ask because it's definitely not the date that each package was last updated (gala has a release from July 2020 and commits from days ago), so it must be a log of when the affiliated package record was last updated..? |
Oh yea, they seem to be static values from the affiliated package JSON file - sorry for the noise! |
Looks like @bsipocz explained it at https://github.com/astropy/astropy.github.com/pull/382/files#r448593260 I think this date is for the review status and relevant to see when the package needs a rereview, etc. |
Yes just confirming it is when the review results were last updated. We could rename the key to include review perhaps? |
I also agree with doing this and confirm that that date was intended for exactly the purpose here (to know when to re-review). That said... I feel like there's an argument for trying to hold the number at 42... 😉 |
@hamogu , how about we plan to start the cycle, say Jan 2021, and strive to re-review one package every 2 months? (That will only take us 7 years...) |
7 years assuming no new packages! |
We could try parallel processing but will need more cores. 🤓 |
Hopefully would work better than the io.ascii parallel reader? |
Also see #334 . I think we're leaning towards automation and not a full re-review. |
We have collected a number of affiliated packages over the years (42 at the time of writing this). To ensure that the quality of being an affiliated package is maintained, there is a need to go back and re-review them.
Possible outcome for an existing affiliated package:
cc @hamogu and @astropy/coordinators
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: