Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 14, 2020. It is now read-only.

Move PR49 to JuliaDiffEq #7

Closed
1 of 5 tasks
pwl opened this issue Nov 4, 2016 · 16 comments
Closed
1 of 5 tasks

Move PR49 to JuliaDiffEq #7

pwl opened this issue Nov 4, 2016 · 16 comments

Comments

@pwl
Copy link

pwl commented Nov 4, 2016

@mauro3, as @ChrisRackauckas suggested we should move PR49 to JuliaDiffEq to generate more exposure. There are potential opportunities of getting new people involved in this package and we are missing out on them.

  • update the README
  • figure out the name (most likely candidate is ODEIterators.jl)
  • clean up the docs (by this I mean remove the chapters that are not yet written)?
  • detach from ODE.jl
  • anything else?

As for the name, @ChrisRackauckas suggested ODEIterators.jl, which sounds fine. We could also consider ODEInterfaces.jl if we aim higher with the scope of the package.

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Not ODEInterfaces. There's already ODEInterface which is well-established. That's pretty confusing.

@pwl
Copy link
Author

pwl commented Nov 4, 2016

True, I had a feeling that I heart the name somewhere:-). Any other propositions?

@mauro3
Copy link
Contributor

mauro3 commented Nov 4, 2016

How about we name it Pr49.jl? No, more seriously, leave it as ODE.jl and have an ODElegacy.jl.

@mauro3
Copy link
Contributor

mauro3 commented Nov 5, 2016

Actually how about we do name it PR49.jl for now and move it to JuliaDiffEq. Once it is ready we can ponder the names more.

@musm
Copy link

musm commented Nov 6, 2016

just a quick fyi PR49.jl would with very high probability (a.s 1) not pass through tony over at METADATA.jl

@mauro3
Copy link
Contributor

mauro3 commented Nov 7, 2016

Yes Tony wouldn't like that. But, sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant to use PR49.jl as an interim name to allow moving https://github.com/JuliaODE/ODE.jl to this organization (ODE.jl exists already). Once we decide it was ready to register in METADATA.jl, we'd need to find another name.

@pwl
Copy link
Author

pwl commented Nov 7, 2016

Yeah, a PR49.jl working name would be fine. Is there any way to remove the "fork" status from PR49? If we plan to replace ODE.jl with PR49.jl we shouldn't have a "fork" status on the replacement package, otherwise it will be seen as a fork of ODELegacy.jl. Or maybe even a fork itself (ODE.jl) after the name change?

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

Yeah, a PR49.jl working name would be fine. Is there any way to remove the "fork" status from PR49? If we plan to replace ODE.jl with PR49.jl we shouldn't have a "fork" status on the replacement package, otherwise it will be seen as a fork of ODELegacy.jl. Or maybe even a fork itself (ODE.jl) after the name change?

Looks like that has an easy fix:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16052477/delete-fork-dependency-of-a-github-repository

@pwl
Copy link
Author

pwl commented Nov 8, 2016

As of now, PR49.jl is detached from ODE.jl.

@mauro3
Copy link
Contributor

mauro3 commented Nov 8, 2016

I guess my idea of keeping ODE.jl as name and moving the old to LegacyODE.jl was not too popular...

@pwl
Copy link
Author

pwl commented Nov 8, 2016

@mauro3 I like this idea, that's why I detached PR49. A repo replacing ODE shouldn't be its fork and there is almost nothing left of the old ODE in PR49. In the meantime we can keep a working name like PR49 or ODEIterators.

@mauro3
Copy link
Contributor

mauro3 commented Nov 8, 2016

Ok, I guess that should work. Tnx!

@pwl
Copy link
Author

pwl commented Nov 9, 2016

So, how about we move PR49 to JuliaDiffEq now, as PR49.jl, without registering it as a package (the name wouldn't pass the METADATA standards). Then we could think about fixing the remaining issues and use it to replace ODE.jl.

@pwl
Copy link
Author

pwl commented Dec 22, 2016

Is anybody against the name ODEIterators?

@mauro3
Copy link
Contributor

mauro3 commented Dec 22, 2016

👍 but I'm not sure it passes the strict naming conventions. But we can cross that bridge when we get there.

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

👍 but I'm not sure it passes the strict naming conventions. But we can cross that bridge when we get there.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure of a sane way to name it that passes the naming conventions...

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants