[Bigbang-dev] Thoughts on plans for future releases

[Niels ten Oever]

Happy to help! I imagine you have git cloned from the datactive repository?

I think then we should:

1. create a fork on Github,  (fork on github website)
2. add the fork as remote repo to your local clone (git remote add)
3. create a branch for the changes (git checkout -b NAME)
3. add the changes ( git add FILE)
4. commit the changes to your remote repo on github (git commit -m
'COMMENT')
5. push the changes (git commit REMOTE BRANCH)
5. open a pull request between your github repo and the datactive repo
(on the website)

Did I miss anything?

Cheers,

Niels



Niels ten Oever

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

On 07/15/2018 05:32 AM, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
> On 2018-07-10 19:02, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> Hi Amelia,
>>
>> Could you make pull requests for that?
> 
> Not sure I can. Maybe if I go to the hackathon tomorrow someone could
> help me?
> 
> best regards,
> 
> Amelia
> 
>> That would be great!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> Niels ten Oever
>>
>> Article 19
>> www.article19.org
>>
>> PGP fingerprint    2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
>>                    643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>>
>> On 07/09/2018 06:20 PM, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
>>> On 2018-07-08 01:26, Nick Doty wrote:
>>>> That sounds to me like a reasonable game plan.
>>>>
>>>> I like the idea of getting more tests in there now in part so that it
>>>> can feel like a more regular practice to add tests whenever we add new
>>>> features.
>>>>
>>>> I like the idea of adding API documentation, but mostly only if we can
>>>> generate that from inline docstrings, as I'm not confident at this
>>>> point that we can keep completely separate documentation pages up to
>>>> date. I recognize we might need a page or two of overview
>>>> documentation that would be separately written, but otherwise I think
>>>> we can just use tools to generate docs and then make a habit of
>>>> keeping the parameter explanations up to date in the code itself.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not at all clear on what would be necessary for the Python 2 -> 3
>>>> migration or what benefits that would bring us, so I hope you can take
>>>> the lead on that Seb, if indeed it's important for future progress.
>>>>
>>> I've already done some migration work because I didn't want to have the
>>> Python2.7 packages installed. Whatever is needed to follow Niels'
>>> wordcount notebook works with v3-packages for me.
>>>
>>> best regards,
>>>
>>> Amelia
>>>
>>>> What do others think? If this makes sense, should we start opening
>>>> issues to track these tasks?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 7:02 AM, Sebastian Benthall <sbenthall at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:sbenthall at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>
>>>>> Feeling fresh from the 0.2.0 release, I'm thinking about how to keep
>>>>> momentum. It was, really shockingly, over three years between the
>>>>> first two releases, and that's really not right. Research [1] has
>>>>> shown that after three releases, a project is much more likely to be
>>>>> a 'success', not getting abandoned.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is also clearly a lot of ways to polish BigBang that are not
>>>>> deeply technical. 
>>>>>  - We made a lot of progress on the notebooks in the last release,
>>>>> but there is still lots more to do. For example, there's no reason
>>>>> why we shouldn't have notebooks demonstrating how to answer each of
>>>>> Corinne's questions from her recent thread. 
>>>>>  - There's also lots we could do to improve documentation. We should
>>>>> be publishing the API docs to a website like https://readthedocs.org/
>>>>>  - We have a few automated tests, but not thorough test coverage. We
>>>>> could improve that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose we make this kind of polishing work the goal of the next,
>>>>> /0.2.1/ release. This would be a small patch release on the existing
>>>>> one, with no major functional changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> A reason why I'm proposing this is that in my mind, the most urgent
>>>>> big update needed to BigBang is conversion from Python 2 to Python 3.
>>>>> That will involve a lot of tweaks across the entire system. Automated
>>>>> test coverage and good documentation of the existing functionality is
>>>>> important to make sure we don't lose quality and introduce new bugs
>>>>> when making that upgrade.
>>>>>
>>>>> What say you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for reading,
>>>>> Seb
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/internet-success
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bigbang-dev mailing list
>>>> Bigbang-dev at data-activism.net
>>>> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/bigbang-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bigbang-dev mailing list
>> Bigbang-dev at data-activism.net
>> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/bigbang-dev
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/bigbang-dev/attachments/20180715/87e6193e/attachment.sig>