Repository navigation
Deprecate analytic_functions subpackage and move functions to modeling - #6191
Conversation
pllim
added
zzz 💤 analytic_functions
af5a60a to
94eea81
Compare
|
Note: To free up Travis resources, I purposely cancelled the test here (that is why it is reported as failing). The actual test ran on my fork here -- https://travis-ci.org/pllim/astropy/builds/242561616 |
astrofrog
left a comment
astrofrog
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks great but my only concern is discoverability of physical models such as these, as they will be hidden away in models. We may want to consider having a docs page at some point on physical models and show the user they are in astropy.modeling. We need to do a good job at showing users models aren't all about fitting.
@eteq @taldcroft @kelle - as coordinators, do you have any thoughts here?
mhvk
left a comment
mhvk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This all looks good, but agreed with @astrofrog that the one risk is that people will not be able to find it easily. I think all it needs is some mention near the top of the modeling page. But maybe best to raise it as a separate issue.
|
Re: Documentation -- I thought about inserting a blackbody section in RST but couldn't find a proper place to put it. It seems inconsistent to have a whole section on blackbody model but for all other models, one has to dig into API doc. I agree that re-organizing modeling doc should be a separate issue. I'll kick of Travis properly now that this got 2 approvals. Release person should merge this as "last before release" as tagged. Thank you! |
pllim
added
the
zzz 💤 merge-when-ci-passes
|
@eteq @astrofrog - Even though we talked about these deprecation being done as "last before release", in reality they should be in before branching out to get some testing, right? Since we're in a faster release cycle, that may be inconvenient for affiliates for ~2 weeks. What do you think? |
|
This is good to go, but waiting for more approvals from the coordinators. @eteq @taldcroft @kelle |
|
Abstain.
Maybe we want a tutorial just showing off the blackbody model? If yes, pls
start a new issue in astropy/astropy-tutorials.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:10 AM Brigitta Sipocz ***@***.***> wrote:
This is good to go, but waiting for more approvals from the coordinators.
@eteq <https://github.com/eteq> @taldcroft <https://github.com/taldcroft>
@kelle <https://github.com/kelle>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6191 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABYJmUk4bn856RGn97P5KXMIY9OnNSLzks5sETtNgaJpZM4N4tTq>
.
--
kelle (via iOS)
|
|
See #6227 for my take on this. |
|
@pllim - Could you rebase this once more? Also I wonder what the status here, can we merge this (it appears to me, but it's nice to give a last chance for protest)? |
94eea81 to
9fdba17
Compare
|
Rebase but please wait for me to double check the diff tomorrow, just in case... |
|
@bsipocz , rebased diff looks fine. I restarted the Travis build that failed with timeout. |
|
Travis passed, so merging now. Thanks @pllim! |
Deprecate analytic_functions subpackage and move functions to modeling
MSeifert04
removed
the
zzz 💤 merge-when-ci-passes
7 participants
Fix #5780