Add badges

[tupui]

Was raised on the BOF session.

It could be good to encourage badges like this one:

![Static Badge](https://img.shields.io/badge/SPEC-0%2C1%2C4-brightgreen)

(OC you can make this clickable so that it goes to the SPEC's website.)

[lagru]

I assume the numbers reference the endorsed SPECs? That list might get too long at some point. What do you think about providing two kinds of badges:

• A badge referencing a specific SPEC. And instead of a number we would encourage a short keyword, e.g. "SPEC | 0 - Minimum Version". Projects are free to add one or multiple ones.
• A summary badge, with a count of SPECs that a project aims to follow, e.g. "SPEC | 3 supported" or "SPEC | 3 adopted"

I am skeptical about displaying a count, because it might imply that more is better, even though projects might have good reasons not to adopt a SPEC. So the badge should definitely be an affirmative green always.

[tupui]

Yeah so I was thinking about just not showing any number at all too. It could just read SPEC|compliant. Or something like that.

[aterrel]

What determines if a discussion happens on github versus discourse?

[Carreau]

for me discourse discussion should really be rough drafts and gathering idea, and moved to GH once smth is more concrete.

…

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 17:39 Andy R. Terrel ***@***.***> wrote: What determines if a discussion happens on github versus discourse? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#240 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACR5T35LSHFXIOMCOEXHR3X2B62DANCNFSM6AAAAAA2JLI5CI> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jarrodmillman]

And more meta stuff like this will likely happen in GH.

[tupui]

BTW, happy to see you here @aterrel 😃

[tupui]

Linked to that, or I can convert that comment into an issue.

On top of badges, what if we provided some sort of card?

I was looking at this (on Apple for an App you have these sorts of cards):

I imagine the same design but for SPECs. I am a bit lazy to do the mockup right now 😅, but replace the logo with our logo, instead of Data ... put the number of the SPEC and a short description. And then for the items bellow you write the implementation details. e.g. if you support SPEC 0 you say things like Support x years etc. You could either have such a card per SPEC, or just one cart which lists all endorsed SPECs with sections for all SPECs to give the implementation details.

[Carreau]

I think cards would make sens once we have a bit more specs in the pipeline. +1 for badge. I think we could also suggest a github topic, so that it's easier to search for project using a spec.

[tupui]

Good idea for the GitHub topic +1

[bsipocz]

Re the badge in the opening: what about having one separate one for each SPECs rather than a joint? Then their link could point to the actual SPEC's page.

[bsipocz]

(and based on today's discussion, I suppose these badges should not mean "endorsed" but rather "implemented" or "follow" or whatever the right term will be. (maybe "SPEC 0 powered", though that's a bit too much I suppose )

[tupui]

Yeah not sure because that could quickly lead to Christmas trees in the readme. Projects like NetworkX already support a bunch so they would need to add multiple badges.

I think leaving this up to the projects is also ok. So we say: either make one badge per SPEC following this template, or have a single badge with this other template.

[bsipocz]

they would need to add multiple badges.

I don't think the need to add, but the could add the badges.

My main motivation with the one per spec is that it could easily link back to, while the one above is a bit more misleading if the badge would look almost the same, just a different combination of numbers on it (which could then of course also lead to a Christmas tree appearance for projects that adopted a lot of them)

[Carreau]

I've added spec-0000 topic to IPython. We can add description to a topic only once there are enough repos with it.

[lagru]

I think leaving this up to the projects is also ok. So we say: either make one badge per SPEC following this template, or have a single badge with this other template.

+1 on this. This fits with the philosophy of projects having agency with which SPECs they want to endorse. For the case were projects want to collect endorsed SPECs in a single badge, we could just offer two flavors: one that lists all endorsed ones, and one that just says something like "SPECs endorsed".

Can we make it so that the badge has a white Scientific Python tree inside? That might make it more distinct and professional looking. :)

[jarrodmillman]

I've added spec-0000 topic to IPython. We can add description to a topic only once there are enough repos with it.

Should it be https://github.com/topics/spec-0 or https://github.com/topics/SPEC-0 instead of https://github.com/topics/spec-0000? The 0000 was mainly just so things would sort properly when I use ls at the command-line in the spec repository on my laptop. Everywhere else we just refer to it as SPEC 0.

[jarrodmillman]

Since no one commented, I've taken it as tacit endorsement of https://github.com/topics/spec-0000. So I added the following topics to the scientific-python/specs repo:

https://github.com/topics/spec-0
https://github.com/topics/spec-1
https://github.com/topics/spec-4

[Carreau]

Should the above be edited, I think everything was changed to removed the leading zeroes.

And sorry I was (trying to). take time off until a few hours ago.