python-package-guide
python-package-guide copied to clipboard
pyOpenSci
scientific Python package recommendations & guidance curated by pyOpenSci
In [this comment](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/python-package-guide/pull/104/files#r1340752757) @sneakers-the-rat made a great suggestion to make some test suite examples that would run within our guidebook. I think we can do this with myst-nb but let's...
In our guide - we spent a bit of time discussing users and various shells. [here is the conversation](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/python-package-guide/pull/106#discussion_r1428339852) in my experience teaching this topic, many don't know / understand...
Hello, this is a follow up on https://discuss.python.org/t/python-packaging-documentation-feedback-and-discussion/24833/78. I believe that there are some imprecisions in the section: https://www.pyopensci.org/python-package-guide/package-structure-code/python-package-build-tools.html#challenges-using-setuptools For example: > setuptools will build a project without a name...
This is still very much a work in progress! Just adding what I have so far from the last two writing sprints --- - To see the specific tasks where...
some very helpful discussion came up in a [recent review here](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/python-package-guide/pull/55#discussion_r1133394322) about tests and when to include them and what to do with data, etc. When we work on our...
I don't see much information in this package development guide regarding examples for a package. Well written Python packages provide examples on how to use that package. Those examples can...
I feel like this section: https://www.pyopensci.org/python-package-guide/package-structure-code/python-package-build-tools.html#summary-of-tools-hatch-vs-pdm-vs-poetry-and-setuptools ...is a bit confusing. I think a new packager will read this and still be unclear whether to package a pure Python project with...
The decision tree diagram is awesome -- very helpful I think. Thank you for making it. I spotted some possible typos: - There's a missing closing parenthesis in the italic...
ok yes this is confusing isn't it. we should actually link over to the author checks rather than have a requirements list embedded here this is what we have now...
This PR addresses #255
