|18 Nov 2021|
In reply to @slack_astropy_U86349G3C:openastronomy.orgI know there is work going on, but I haven't had time to investigate.
|19 Nov 2021|
|@mr-magnificent:matrix.org changed their display name from mr-magnificent to Hipetty hopetty we'd like to talk about your cars extended warranty.||13:21:26|
|@mr-magnificent:matrix.org changed their profile picture.||13:21:35|
|@mr-magnificent:matrix.org left the room.||13:22:26|
|pllim||To whom it may concern, I have enabled more branch protection for the main branch on https://github.com/astropy/astropy/ repository. If you have any open pull requests, you will notice that most of the continuous integration jobs have a "Required" label next to them. This means that those jobs have to pass for a merge to be possible. An administrator still has option to override it via a checkbox for a particular pull request but it is heavily discouraged. Motivation: This is to prevent cases where a reviewer overlooked a real CI failure, causing the main branch to break. This is not uncommon when there are several unrelated failures masking the real failure, especially following some breaking changes from upstream releases or even transient failures caused by the network. If these new protection rules are too strict and prevent reasonable turnaround time for pull request merges, we will be happy to revisit the rules. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, Pey Lian (on behalf of astropy infrastructure team)||17:33:59|
|22 Nov 2021|
|Scalperos joined the room.||16:14:08|
|23 Nov 2021|
|@server_stats:nordgedanken.dev left the room.||04:07:32|
|Henry Schreiner joined the room.||17:44:46|
|Henry Schreiner changed their display name from slack_astropy_U02P31A9N56 to Henry Schreiner.||17:51:09|
|Henry Schreiner set a profile picture.||17:51:11|
|Henry Schreiner changed their profile picture.||17:51:12|
|Henry Schreiner||Hi all, I’m not sure what channel this should go in (happy to move to one if there’s a better fit): I’m working on a NSF proposal to simplify compiled Python packaging. It would build up scikit-build (the official adaptor for CMake) with standards-based tooling, plugins, and more - just in time for the removal of distutils in Python 3.12. In the second year it would include explicit help with moving several projects over to using it for their build system. Would this be useful to any projects in astropy? I’m looking for science drivers to list in my proposal and ideally a couple of collaboration letters - I think having a robust build system for Python would be huge (and SciPy is abandoning setuptools as well - I don ’t think ). More on the proposal details here: https://iscinumpy.gitlab.io/post/scikit-build-proposal/||18:05:14|
In reply to@slack_astropy_U02P31A9N56:openastronomy.orgThere is a #astropy_infrastructure:openastronomy.org channel, which I think would be appropriate for this topic. Thanks!
|astronarchist joined the room.||18:33:16|
|Henry Schreiner|| |
In reply to@slack_astropy_U774ARTKR:openastronomy.orgMoved to #astropy_infrastructure:openastronomy.org, thanks!
|Henry Schreiner changed their profile picture.||18:49:50|
|astronarchist set a profile picture.||20:44:20|
|24 Nov 2021|
|octazyggurat joined the room.||18:52:48|
|25 Nov 2021|
|astrojuanlu||I see that 5.0 was tagged and uploaded to PyPI some days ago, but I didn't see any announcements on astropy-dev, python-announce, or Twitter - did I miss anything?||17:15:41|
In reply to @astrojuanlu:matrix.orgI assume the delay is for conda packages etc, there is normally a wait there.
In reply to@cadair:cadair.comI’ll be sending out the announcements shortly!
|29 Nov 2021|
|astrofrog||📣 astropy 5.0 has now been released! See https://www.astropy.org/announcements/release-5.0.html for the full announcement! 🎉||14:06:32|
|Leo Singer||I missed the memo on dropping Python 3.7 support. When did that happen, and why?||16:20:51|
|Leo Singer|| |
In reply to@slack_astropy_UGFMWUL01:openastronomy.orgOh, this is just because of the NEP 29 schedule, isn't it?
In reply to@slack_astropy_UGFMWUL01:openastronomy.orgYes. There was a whole APE about this. 🙂
|Leo Singer|| |
In reply to@slack_astropy_U774ARTKR:openastronomy.orgSuggestion: an APE to detail recommended Python version support for coordinated and affiliated packages
In reply to @slack_astropy_UGFMWUL01:openastronomy.org"Do the same as core" that was easy ;)
In reply to @cadair:cadair.commore seriously there was talk about that at the time of the core APE but we wanted to get that straigtened out first.
In reply to@cadair:cadair.comCoordinated packages should follow core, but affiliated packages are not in our purvue.
|Scalperos changed their profile picture.||18:06:21|