Skip to content

Plans to publish signatures to pypi? #411

Open
@tlambert03

Description

@tlambert03

Hi 👋

love what's happening here.

I'm playing around with stubbing out protocols for common image analysis operations (e.g. scikit-image), and would love to build on what already exists in API_specification/signatures. I'm wondering if you have any plans to publish/distribute the stubs in that folder to PyPI?

Activity

honno

honno commented on Mar 27, 2022

@honno
Member

I'd be interested in this for the test suite too, where we utilise signatures already. Might help us with data-apis/array-api-tests#107.

I imagine this could be a completely automated process from this repo (i.e. no separate repo), with calender versioned releases. Have to be mindful of #398—possibly the top-level package could be namespaced with each spec release, e.g. xp_signatures.v1. Probably worth waiting until we get a first spec release generally.

rgommers

rgommers commented on Aug 4, 2022

@rgommers
Member

Probably worth waiting until we get a first spec release generally.

We now have a final release. This isn't too much work to do. Should we go ahead with this?

honno

honno commented on Aug 4, 2022

@honno
Member

I'd propose we first work on setting up a workflow where the signatures folder is uploaded as-is, available at say the <pkg_name>.draft namespace. Then we could get onto uploading versioned namespaces, which might be a bit annoying but still quite do-able.

linked a pull request that will close this issue on Aug 15, 2022
kgryte

kgryte commented on Apr 4, 2024

@kgryte
Contributor

@honno Is this something that we can move forward?

added
ToolsIssue or pull request pertaining to tooling for authoring and managing this specification.
on Apr 4, 2024
changed the title [-]plans to publish `signatures` to pypi?[/-] [+]Plans to publish `signatures` to pypi?[/+] on Apr 4, 2024
honno

honno commented on Apr 10, 2024

@honno
Member

@honno Is this something that we can move forward?

I think we'd really want to get in #589 first (which LGTM but we'd want someone else to give the go-ahead, then we can ping nstarman to see if they can update/rebase the PR (or if not available I can have a go).

Then we could publish basically as-is, or I could update #472 with said changes assuming folks are happy with the direction I was going for... I'll have a think over but again #589 is blocking anywho IMO.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    ToolsIssue or pull request pertaining to tooling for authoring and managing this specification.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

      Development

      Participants

      @rgommers@tlambert03@kgryte@honno

      Issue actions

        Plans to publish `signatures` to pypi? · Issue #411 · data-apis/array-api