Use Scientific Python SPEC0 instead of NEP29 #51
Conversation
Also mention Scientific Python development guide.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hello @cgohlke. I need to read into more detail the SPEC0 guidelines but it seems a good idea to adopt them if there is were the community is going.
The repo-review tool is a very good idea. We might think of implementing it in the short term, but we can discuss it in the next meeting and how to tackle the aspects that don't comply with the guidelines.
|
We already loosely follow these guides. The guides are a good read, but generally opinionated and constantly changing. The only real issue raised by the repo-review tool is pre-commit. I use scripts instead, but for other contributors it might be convenient. We already discussed using ruff instead of black in the future. We can discuss adopting the stricter MyPy rules: |
Description
Numpy's NEP29 is superseded by the Scientific Python SPEC 0 — Minimum Supported Dependencies guideline.
Also mention the Scientific Python development guide, which competes (?) with the pyOpenSci Python Package Guide.
The Scientific Python project provides a repo-review tool, which we might want to check.
Release note
Summarize the changes in the code block below to be included in the
release notes:
Checklist