Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Updated community documents #37

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Jan 25, 2021
Merged

Updated community documents #37

merged 10 commits into from
Jan 25, 2021

Conversation

aburrell
Copy link
Member

Added missing community documents, addressing #2. Also added a .zenodo.json file, updated setup configuration and travis.yml to comply with up-to-date methods used in pysatSpaceWeather.

Added pysat code of conduct.
Added guidelines for contributing to pysatMadrigal.
Added a zenodo json file.
Fixed bug when setting options in the setup.cfg file.
Added a pull request template.
Added issue templates for bugs, features, and questions.
Added a file manifest.
Removed unneeded line from the manifest.
Renamed testing requirements files to better describe their contents.
Updated travis to use requirements files.
@aburrell aburrell added this to the 0.1.0 Release milestone Jan 21, 2021
Copy link
Collaborator

@rstoneback rstoneback left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @aburrell. Looks good to me. I did raise a question for you to consider but I'll leave the outcome to you. Cheers.

- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we still have a downstream check for a pysat* package?
Personally it seems to me that the check should be for upstream.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well, we can't break anything upstream, so I don't think we need a check there. While at the moment there isn't anything downstream from here, it's possible that analysis packages could rely on instrument methods in the future. So that is why I am keeping it here :)

@aburrell aburrell merged commit e4f3ec3 into develop Jan 25, 2021
@aburrell aburrell deleted the community_docs branch January 25, 2021 17:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants