This package has been re-reviewed by the Astropy coordination committee in relation to the Astropy affiliated package ecosystem.
We have adopted a review process for affiliated package that includes assigning quantitative ‘scores’ (red/orange/green) for different categories of review. You can read up more about this process here. (This document, currently in Google Docs, will be moved to the documentation in the near future.) For each of the categories below we have listed the score and have included some comments when the score is not green.
Summary/Decision: Things are looking good, and this package meets the review criteria for
If you agree with the above review, please feel free to close this issue. If you have any follow-up questions or disagree with any of the comments above, leave a comment and we can discuss it here. At any point in future you can request a re-review of the package if you believe any of the scores should be updated - contact the coordination committee, and we’ll do a new review. Note that we are in the process of redesigning the http://affiliated.astropy.org page to show these scores (but not the comments). Finally, please keep the title of this issue as-is (“Astropy Affiliated Package Review”) to make it easy to search for affiliated package reviews in future.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello @astrofrog, thank you a lot for taking poliastro in consideration! I am extremely happy to have it as an Astropy affiliated package, and this is no doubt a strong motivation to move forward and keep up with the development.
I agree with the "Development status" and "Testing" scores. The former will probably stay throughout 2018 (I expect poliastro to stabilize in 2019) and the latter is a known issue that we have on our radar.
Regarding the integration with the Astropy ecosystem, I have a couple of questions:
Would you specify a bit more? All modules in
Let me clarify this :) We have been following closely the development of velocity conversions in Astropy, see: #186 astropy/astropy#6435 astropy/astropy#6436 astropy/astropy#5898 astropy/astropy#6494 but, very specially, this pull request:
This proved to be challenging from a "social" point of view and we wanted to have a stable release in October, so our decision was to use poliastro as a "test environment" for things we would like to contribute back to Astropy (and also without the need of very broad consensus while the APIs are changing).
These are mostly comments about the score details but I agree with the review, so I will be glad to close the issue when you have the time to comment on these small questions.
Hi @Juanlu001 - thanks for the engagement! Let me try to answer your questions here:
This appears to have just been a mistake on my part (I'm the one who wrote that comment) - I looked at several functions and thought it wasn't quantity-compliant but looking more closely, all the ones I saw before are called from other places that do have quantities. So you can ignore that. (If you like you can take this as very mild feedback that some of the docstrings in
Great! That all makes sense, and is a very sensible approach. We just have to be sure we keep the communication lines open in the future.