Add infrastructure packages #293
Conversation
|
I actually think that we should add |
|
Fine with me |
but maybe better as a core-datastructure rather than infra? |
|
I wouldn't say core-datastructure but rather a normal ecosystem package. |
At some point, it might become one but for now, I agree with Lukas |
|
@ilan-gold, can you please make a PR to add annbatch then? |
flying-sheep
force-pushed
the
infrastructure-packages
branch
from
e9e9a38 to
4dc2131
Compare
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
It is (1) unmaintained (2) doesn't have tests (3) doesn't have CI It was part of the initial set of packages we fast-track added when launching this registry, so it never went through proper review.
|
Sorry @grst missed your comment (was during the conference). I don't think it belongs here either. When the time comes, I think a core data structure or ecosystem is the best route. I am not ready for ecosystem though yet, I'd like to stabilize the API |
| contact: | ||
| - grst | ||
| - flying-sheep |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this true? Nobody else feels responsible for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm afraid yes. Would you have someone in mind?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don’t have anyone who likes writing tutorials? We need to fix that.
Co-authored-by: Philipp A. <flying-sheep@web.de>
I thought it could be nice to also list core "infrastructure" packages on the website and take them into account for the stats.
By "core-infrastructure" I mean packages that are required behind the scenes to make scverse work and have a similar priority in maintenance as the core frameworks.
The final list can be discussed, but I included things like
cookiecutter-scverseorscverse-tutorials, but deliberately did not includeformulaic-contrasts,shadows, orannbatch.