Hello everyone interested in ISBG! This is basically a follow-up to my PR (https://github.com/isbg/isbg/pull/63). So there are now two disparate "feature" branches: https://github.com/isbg/isbg/tree/v.1.01 https://github.com/isbg/isbg/tree/v.2.0 How do we merge those? I'd also like to note that my branch (v.2.0) needs to be rebased, cleaned up, and tested. There is also this issue outstanding: https://github.com/isbg/isbg/issues/66 I also have the following questions/issues: * Do we want to maintain Python (2.7) compatibility? I've done that in very hacky ways so far simply to not break existing users while investing minimal effort. If we want to do this properly we'll have to pull in six * Anything below Python 2.7 is just a lost cause imo. * Do we want to maintain the ability for people to use isbg by just downloading isbg.py and running it from the commandline? Removing that would also make the code a lot cleaner. Since it seems baldurmen doesn't have that much time, I'd also like to use this mail to offer to take up co-maintainership for isbg. ISBG is going to be a central pillar, that I'm going to maintain, of the mail system at my organisation (Technical University of Munich, Department of Computer Science) going forward so I think I'm in a good place to do that. (I'd try very hard to stay neutral about my usecases for ISBG vs. other people's usecases and I'd accept any sensible PRs.) Best regards, Luke
On 24/01/17 03:25 AM, luke@lerlacher.de wrote:
Hello everyone interested in ISBG!
Hehe, at the moment, we are only two!
This is basically a follow-up to my PR (https://github.com/isbg/isbg/pull/63).
So there are now two disparate "feature" branches:
https://github.com/isbg/isbg/tree/v.1.01 https://github.com/isbg/isbg/tree/v.2.0
How do we merge those? I'd also like to note that my branch (v.2.0) needs to be rebased, cleaned up, and tested.
The way I see it is that we merge when 2.0 is stable. I feel we can let it diverge for now. When 2.0 will be stable and tested, we can start merging new features. How does that sound?
There is also this issue outstanding: https://github.com/isbg/isbg/issues/66
I also have the following questions/issues:
* Do we want to maintain Python (2.7) compatibility? I've done that in very hacky ways so far simply to not break existing users while investing minimal effort. If we want to do this properly we'll have to pull in six * Anything below Python 2.7 is just a lost cause imo. * Do we want to maintain the ability for people to use isbg by just downloading isbg.py and running it from the commandline? Removing that would also make the code a lot cleaner.
IMHO, 2.0 should be python 3 and we should remove the Windows compatibility.
Since it seems baldurmen doesn't have that much time, I'd also like to use this mail to offer to take up co-maintainership for isbg. ISBG is going to be a central pillar, that I'm going to maintain, of the mail system at my organisation (Technical University of Munich, Department of Computer Science) going forward so I think I'm in a good place to do that. (I'd try very hard to stay neutral about my usecases for ISBG vs. other people's usecases and I'd accept any sensible PRs.)
Very happy to hear that! (baldurmen == me). I think I'm co-maint of ISBG with Thomas (has been absent for quite a while) and I have to check with him, but I have no problem whatsoever myself to add you. I think if we are to have something that works well, we should set up a reviewing policy though. Something like: you PR I review and the contrary. -- pollo (a.k.a baldurmen)
participants (2)
-
Louis-Philippe Véronneau -
Lukas Erlacher