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

Proposed affiliated package: regularizePSF #528

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 3, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
19 changes: 19 additions & 0 deletions affiliated/registry.json
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,5 +1,24 @@
{
"packages": [
{
"name": "regularizePSF",
"maintainer": "Marcus Hughes <[email protected]>",
"stable": true,
"home_url": "https://punch-mission.github.io/regularizepsf/",
"repo_url": "https://github.com/punch-mission/regularizepsf",
"pypi_name": "regularizepsf",
"description": "regularizePSF is a package for manipulating and correcting variable point spread functions in astronomical images",
"coordinated": false,
"review": {
"functionality": "General package",
"ecointegration": "Partial",
"documentation": "Good",
"testing": "Good",
"devstatus": "Good",
"python3": "Yes",
"last-updated": "2023-04-21"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I thought this date is supposed to be the date of acceptance? Though, I cannot find explicit mention of that in https://github.com/astropy/astropy-project/blob/main/affiliated/affiliated_package_review_process.md . Do you remember, @hamogu or @dhomeier ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I just recall this had been discussed before e.g. https://github.com/astropy/astropy.github.com/pull/489/files#r866905596
but prior usage probably indeed has generally referred to the last change of package status.
No one would want to keep the latest release dates up to date anyway...
But as long as it reflects, in this case, the date/version the review was based on, I think we can live with it.
Should probably clarify it in the docs, or in whatever documentation we are going to use from now on.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think I have been using it as "acceptance date", see #490 😬

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

}
},
{
"name": "BayesicFitting",
"maintainer": "Do Kester and Migo Mueller <[email protected]>",
Expand Down