Tasks to complete before making this repo public

[Dr-Irv]

• Set up CI as in the MS project to automatically test the stubs Set up CI as in the MS project to automatically test the stubs #3
• Figure out how to package the stubs as a pandas-stubs project for distribution Figure out how to package the stubs as a pandas-stubs project for distribution #4

[simonjayhawkins]

@Dr-Irv i've split off the technical issues into separate issues for discussion. I see these issues as required before publishing the stubs not making this repo public. To allow public engagement and contributions, what's preventing us making this repo public?

[Dr-Irv]

@Dr-Irv i've split off the technical issues into separate issues for discussion. I see these issues as required before publishing the stubs not making this repo public. To allow public engagement and contributions, what's preventing us making this repo public?

Possibly three things (although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise):

1. Some documentation related to how we want this to evolve, standards, testing mechanism, etc.
2. Having to manage differences between how this would evolve versus the Microsoft stubs. At some point, they will cut over and take what we have here.
3. I also think we should get Set up CI as in the MS project to automatically test the stubs #3 working before making it public. Then if we get contributions, we know it is getting properly tested.

[simonjayhawkins]

• Some documentation related to how we want this to evolve, standards, testing mechanism, etc.

maybe something basic in the first instance to get us up and running

• Having to manage differences between how this would evolve versus the Microsoft stubs. At some point, they will cut over and take what we have here.

maybe need a dedicated issue to discuss the inter-project relationship

• I also think we should get Set up CI as in the MS project to automatically test the stubs #3 working before making it public. Then if we get contributions, we know it is getting properly tested.

that's a fair point, but also happy not to block on this. maybe we should put a timescale on this, say if we have not got something up and running in say 4 weeks, then we should move forward regardless.

[Dr-Irv]

• I also think we should get Set up CI as in the MS project to automatically test the stubs #3 working before making it public. Then if we get contributions, we know it is getting properly tested.

that's a fair point, but also happy not to block on this. maybe we should put a timescale on this, say if we have not got something up and running in say 4 weeks, then we should move forward regardless.

I just need to find some time to do this.....

[Dr-Irv]

• I also think we should get Set up CI as in the MS project to automatically test the stubs #3 working before making it public. Then if we get contributions, we know it is getting properly tested.

that's a fair point, but also happy not to block on this. maybe we should put a timescale on this, say if we have not got something up and running in say 4 weeks, then we should move forward regardless.

I just need to find some time to do this.....

I have CI working now. So we now have an equivalent repo to what is in the MS repo.

[Dr-Irv]

And I have made the repo public.

[simonjayhawkins]

And I have made the repo public.

gr8. let's close this then.

and open separate issues for the tasks mentioned in #1 (comment)