APE 1 Modification: Added relevant review periods and clarified start of final review process#128
APE 1 Modification: Added relevant review periods and clarified start of final review process#128kbwestfall wants to merge 10 commits into
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR clarifies the APE (Astropy Proposal for Enhancement) review process by adding explicit timelines for key stages and clarifying when the final review process begins. The changes address ambiguities in the review process workflow.
Changes:
- Added explicit time expectations for the editorial process (ideally 1 month), discussion period (at least 2 weeks), and review period (2-3 weeks)
- Clarified that final edits must be submitted for editorial review and merged before notifying the Coordination Committee
- Specified that the Coordination Committee creates a new PR for documenting their decision
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
|
Is there no way to disable CoPilot for this repo? Do we really need "AI" to review RST docs? |
| 20 `Formatting Code with Black`_ 2022-Sep-23 Accepted |APE 20 DOI| | ||
| 21 `Ending Long Term Support Releases`_ 2023-May-31 Accepted |APE 21 DOI| | ||
| 22 `Astropy Affiliated Packages with pyOpenSci`_ 2024-Jan-29 Accepted |APE 22 DOI| | ||
| 23 `Removing data storage (representations) from coordinate frames`_ 2026-Jan-23 **Discussion** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really need special text formatting for different statuses?
| 23 `Removing data storage (representations) from coordinate frames`_ 2026-Jan-23 **Discussion** | |
| 23 `Removing data storage (representations) from coordinate frames`_ 2026-Jan-23 Discussion |
pllim
left a comment
pllim
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@astrofrog do you remember if more explicit timeline was omitted on purpose or we just did not get to it? I vaguely remember we didn't want an APE to be too specific to avoid having to constantly going through the APE update process if things change, but I don't remember which APE now.
@kbwestfall , the timeline is great but only if CoCo7 and beyond can really enforce it. If it is going to be something more fluid, maybe consider documenting it outside of the APE itself. Example:
Thanks.
As titled.
This circumvents the initial astropy-dev discussion, but this is largely a clarification of some ambiguous aspects of the APE review process.
I'll now send an e-mail to astropy-dev for discussion. Comments welcome!