Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign up[v3] merge altsrc with main package #1058
Conversation
codecov
bot
commented
Jan 30, 2020
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## v3-development-master #1058 +/- ##
========================================================
Coverage ? 67.77%
========================================================
Files ? 31
Lines ? 2647
Branches ? 0
========================================================
Hits ? 1794
Misses ? 741
Partials ? 112
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Motivation, for context: #907 (comment) |
This might be something to balance against the goal of making the project more modular, re: #1055. Two of our three dependencies, |
This PR doesn't intend to make the project modular. It simply exists to integrate the altsrc into the main package. To make the library modular is the last thing in my plan when I am sure that the core features intended for v3 are already in the development branch. Once done, I can think of functionality that can be offloaded into a separate module and downloaded on demand by a user who wants it. |
Sorry, I may have phrased that poorly. This change seems to move in the opposite direction of modularity. We're taking functionality that comes with dependencies such as |
I agree with you @rliebz. Apologies if I came too strongly there. What I wanted to say is I just wanted all the proposed changes together in the development branch to see how they work out together. Once the features are frozen, I would proceed with a cleanup and extract such optional components into separate modules which can then be imported by users when they want to use them. |
I @asahasrabuddhe @rliebz I think you both just made a very strong argument for us including a "module system" in the v3 release! |
I agree with @asahasrabuddhe's proposal of merging |
altsrc is a mess in its current state, so I think this is a good case for us to merge and iterate ^^ we can compare v3 with v1's |
- v3-development-master | ||
pull_request: | ||
branches: | ||
- master | ||
- v1 | ||
- v3-development-master |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
lynncyrin
Feb 26, 2020
Member
v3
? For the sake of consistency
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
rliebz
Feb 26, 2020
Member
Not a huge deal either way, but I actually like having a name like v3-development-master
that indicates a lack of stability compared to v3
.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
asahasrabuddhe
Feb 26, 2020
Author
Member
I agree with @rliebz it's just temporary. I will rename it once it's stable :)
stale
bot
commented
May 26, 2020
This issue or PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. Please add a comment bumping this if you're still interested in it's resolution! Thanks for your help, please let us know if you need anything else. |
stale
bot
commented
Jun 25, 2020
Closing this as it has become stale. |
asahasrabuddhe commentedJan 30, 2020
What type of PR is this?
(REQUIRED)
What this PR does / why we need it:
This is one of the first goals for the v3 release (via #833 (comment)). This helps condense the public API by reducing two exposed packages from before into a single package.
Release Notes