Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New package: CompChem v1.0.0 #120381

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

JuliaRegistrator
Copy link
Contributor

UUID: e4d0f6e5-aaef-4631-895e-149e7b48cbc0
Repo: https://github.com/vishnu2709/CompChem.jl.git
Tree: f33a615fa9905f96899dcc3198391af2cf849ec0

Registrator tree SHA: 17aec322677d9b81cdd6b9b9236b09a3f1374c6a
Copy link
Contributor

Hello, I am an automated registration bot. I help manage the registration process by checking your registration against a set of AutoMerge guidelines. If all these guidelines are met, this pull request will be merged automatically, completing your registration. It is strongly recommended to follow the guidelines, since otherwise the pull request needs to be manually reviewed and merged by a human.

1. New package registration

Please make sure that you have read the package naming guidelines.

2. AutoMerge Guidelines are all met! ✅

Your new package registration met all of the guidelines for auto-merging and is scheduled to be merged when the mandatory waiting period (3 days) has elapsed.

3. To pause or stop registration

If you want to prevent this pull request from being auto-merged, simply leave a comment. If you want to post a comment without blocking auto-merging, you must include the text [noblock] in your comment.

Tip: You can edit blocking comments to add [noblock] in order to unblock auto-merging.

@goerz
Copy link
Member

goerz commented Nov 29, 2024

Thank you for submitting your package! However, I would be concerned that the package name is far too general, at least given the current state of the project.

In any case, this would need a bit more documentation before registering. At the very least, that would be a description of the package's purpose and a small usage example in the README. An important part of packages in General is that any potential user can figure out what the package is about and how to get started with using it. That is really difficult when there is no documentation.

In the longer term, I definitely recommend setting up a Documenter-based documentation. Before a v1.0 release, or for smaller packages that can be effectively described entirely with their README, that's not a requirement, though.

But getting back to the scope of the package: "Computational Chemistry" is a very large field, and a package that encompasses the entire field is probably not manageable by a single person. I'm not saying there couldn't be a registered package CompChem, but it would probably have to be owned by an organization, be fairly mature with complete documentation, and have an active group of maintainers and contributors. If that's what you're aiming for this package to grow into, that's wonderful. But I'd say the registration is a bit premature in that case. A good option for growing your package before registering it in General is to use a LocalRegistry.

The alternative would be to find a more descriptive package name, for a narrower scope.

@JuliaTagBot JuliaTagBot added the AutoMerge: last run blocked by comment PR blocked by one or more comments lacking the string [noblock]. label Nov 29, 2024
@vishnu2709
Copy link

@goerz Thank you for taking the time to give me detailed feedback, it is very appreciated. I will add more features and documentation to the package (and hopeful find some collaborators) and submit the package later when it is more useful to the community.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
AutoMerge: last run blocked by comment PR blocked by one or more comments lacking the string [noblock]. new package
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants