Skip to content
Switch branches/tags
Go to file
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
165 lines (123 sloc) 6.39 KB

APE Purpose and Process

author: Perry Greenfield

date-created: 2013 October 11

date-last-revised: 2013 November 8

date-accepted: 2013 November 8

type: Process

status: Accepted


APE stands for Astropy Proposal for Enhancement. An APE is a design document providing information to the Astropy community, or describing a new feature for Astropy or its processes or environment. The APE should provide a concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for the feature.

We intend APEs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing major new features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for documenting the design decisions that have gone into Python. The APE author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions.

Because the APEs are maintained as text files in a versioned repository (indirectly since this wiki is versioned within github), their revision history is the historical record of the feature proposal

Detailed description

APE Types

Chimp, Gorilla, Bonobo...

But more seriously.

There are three kinds of APE:

  • A "Standard Track" APE describes a new feature or implementation for Astropy. It may also describe an interoperability standard that will be supported in current Astropy versions before a subsequent APE adds the feature in the future.
  • An "Informational" APE describes a Astropy design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Python community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational APEs do not necessarily represent an Astropy community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementers are free to ignore Informational APEs or follow their advice. We await a Zen of Astropy APE.
  • A "Process" APE describes a process surrounding Astropy, or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Process APEs are like Standard Track APEs but apply to areas other than the Astropy package itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Astropy's codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational PEPs, they are more than recommendations, and users are typically not free to ignore them. Examples include procedures, guidelines, changes to the decision-making process, and changes to the tools or environment used in Astropy development. Any meta-APE is also considered a Process APE.

Submitting an APE

The APE process begins with a new idea for Astropy. It is highly recommended that a single APE contain a single key proposal or new idea. Small enhancements or patches often don't need a APE and can be injected into the Astropy development workflow with a patch submission to the Astropy issue tracker. The more focused the APE, the more successful it tends to be. If in doubt, split your APE into several well-focused ones.

Each APE must have a champion -- someone who writes the APE using the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus around the idea. The APE champion (a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is APE-able. Posting to the astropy-dev mailing list is the best way to go about doing this.

Following a discussion on astropy-dev, the proposal should be submitted as a Pull Request to astropy-APEs with the name APE<n>.rst where <n> is an appropriately assigned number. The draft must use the APEtemplate.rst file. That a formal proposal has been submitted as a PR should be announced to the astropy-dev list.

The APE author may update the APE as needed.

Standard Track APEs consist of two parts, a design document and a reference implementation. It is generally recommended that at least a prototype implementation be co-developed with the APE, as ideas that sound good in principle sometimes turn out to be impractical when subjected to the test of implementation. This is not required when too onerous, but some indication of implementation practicality is highly recommended by actual code. The best way to provide that code is via a github pull request either to the astropy/astropy repository, or astropy/astropy-api, as appropriate.

APE Review

Normally APEs are discussed on astropy-dev and perhaps in other forums. Sometimes APEs will grow out of an existing pull request, but it's better to have any discussion after the APE is generated on the list, as it has a wider audience. The final decision on any APE is made by the coordinating committee, though usually a consensus in the development is sufficient (but in unusual cases may be overridden by the coordinating committee). The decision may require changes to the APE and any implementation. Final acceptance is not done until the required changes are made to the APE and implementation.

APE Status

An APE's status can

  • "Discussion": New APE pull requests should always start in this status. This means the APE is currently being considered and a decision has not been made regarding what should be done.
  • "Accepted": If an APE is accepted, it will be merged - either the original author can do this if they wish to fill in the "decision rationale" section, or the coordination committee member who merges it can change the status and write the rationale. Regardless, if the APE is an informational or process APE, it is now done. If it is standard track, this status means it is in the process of being implemented.
  • "Implemented": Only valid for a Standard Track APE. This means the feature discussed in the APE is complete and has been fully merged into the main Astropy repository.
  • "Rejected": If it is decided that an APE should be rejected, the person who merges it should change its status to "Rejected." The "decision rationale" should also be filled in, either by the merger, the original author, or another community member who voiced objections to the APE. The goal is to try to reflect the overall community opinion in these rationales, so that new community members can understand why a decision was made.

Branches and Pull requests




Backward compatibility




Decision Rationale

The coordinating committee thought it was a honking great idea.