Return a link to the description of badges #677
Conversation
This change is the result of discussions as the Astropy 2025 coordination meeting and between the current Astropy affiliated package editors. On the one hand, we want to provide users a quick way to find high-quality, integrated packages that are useful for their projects; on the other hand, we recognize that users have different needs. Some need packages compatible with cutting-edge versions, other need stable packages that don't require updating, e.g. teaching materials with every new release of astropy or numpy. The text here tries to capture that in a few words as possible.
| Note in particular that a development status of | ||
| <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/Functional%20but%20unmaintained-orange.svg" alt="Functional but unmaintained"> or | ||
| <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/Functional%20but%20low%20activity-orange.svg" alt="Functional but low activity"> | ||
| might be perfectly fine for e.g. teaching or with older Python verions, but packages with this status might not be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| might be perfectly fine for e.g. teaching or with older Python verions, but packages with this status might not be | |
| might be perfectly fine for, e.g., teaching or with older Python versions, but packages with this status might not be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dhomeier and I are still discussing other ideas. It's not ideal to mark "functional but low activity" packages orange, since they are, ham, "functional". Maybe a new category "none development" or a different badge color (e.g. blue) would help?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Technically, following the original review guidelines orange (or maybe yellow?🤪) would be appropriate, as such a package is in “non-excellent condition”, but the wording would probably be misleading in that case. Thus we could change that to make it clearer, or emphasise that it is not in an optimal state.
|
They are already listed in the post-APE 22 section directly preceding this one, so should be pretty obvious. Though we could simply append a half-sentence "and have not undergone a new review under the PyOpenSci system yet" to "pre-dated APE 22". The main addition coming out of our discussion was really a new label for all the packages we identify as still functional and useful, but unmaintained either in being explicitly archived, or having had no releases or relevant activity for a few years. At least initially this could just be a new value of Anyway the description should make clear that these packages have been evaluated as fully functional at one time, be we cannot guarantee for their installability or compatibility with recent Astropy versions any more. |
This change is the result of discussions as the Astropy 2025 coordination meeting and between the current Astropy affiliated package editors.
On the one hand, we want to provide users a quick way to find high-quality, integrated packages that are useful for their projects; on the other hand, we recognize that users have different needs. Some need packages compatible with cutting-edge versions, other need stable packages that don't require updating, e.g. teaching materials with every new release of astropy or numpy.
The text here tries to capture that in a few words as possible.
Suggestions for better wording are welcome.