Moving more slowly to pathlib

[gabrieldemarmiesse]

We need to be slow in the changes since we still support python 3.5 and in python 3.5, os.path is not compatible with Pathlib.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 85.517% when pulling 5d58db3 on gabrieldemarmiesse:moving_more_slowly_to_pathlib into b9df680 on IDSIA:master.

[JarnoRFB]

We should probably drop support for 3.5 next :D

[gabrieldemarmiesse]

https://devguide.python.org/#status-of-python-branches

For information. I understand that sacred drops support a bit early (a good thing I believe), that document can help us have rules about what python version to support at a given moment.

[JarnoRFB]

Good to know thanks! Dropping support for python 2 was a sensible decision in my opinion. Dropping support for 3.5 would be a bit early yet I assume. Even though I would love to rely on 3.6 features (f-strings, pathlib, ordered dicts) too many people still use 3.5 I guess. But I will mark 2020-09-13 in my calendar.

[Qwlouse]

Oh yes: 3.6 has many juicy features! I would not drop it yet for the 0.8 release, but for 0.9 it would be good to get rid of Python 3.5.

@gabrieldemarmiesse Thanks a lot for all your work here. I would be happy to add you as a maintainer if you are interested in joining.

[gabrieldemarmiesse]

@Qwlouse , I would be interested in joining as long as there isn't any requirements concerning the amount of time I have to put into it. I can't guarantee that I'll work on it every week or even every month. Other than that I'd be very happy to participate in the API design and internals organisation of Sacred :) Is there any specific rules?

[JarnoRFB]

@gabrieldemarmiesse Would be great to have you on the team! As someone who more recently joined as a maintainer I would say that there are not really any rules. We are quite a small project in terms of people contributing and we are happy about any minute that can be dedicated to sacred, but don't have time or interest to monitor anyone else. All the "maintenance" is what is happening here on github. As a minimum rule I would suggest that maintainers should not merge their own PRs straight away, but at least give other people/maintainers the chance to review. If nothing happens after a few days, I guess it is fine to merge anyway. That is at least what I do.

[gabrieldemarmiesse]

It makes sense, I'm happy to join then :)

[Qwlouse]

Sweet! Completely agree with @JarnoRFB. Before he joined I was the only maintainer, and so far we didn't feel the need to regulate things. You seem all very reasonable, so I am confident that we can just tackle problems as they come up.
@gabrieldemarmiesse I've invited you as a contributor, which means that you can now merge PRs and even commit changes directly. Though I would suggest you follow the same procedure as @JarnoRFB. I will also switch to that workflow.