RFC: split `docscrape` out into separate repo
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 355
- Forks
- 181
- Avg merge
- 1d 9h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 3
Description
SciPy has a one-to-one copy of https://github.com/numpy/numpydoc/blob/main/numpydoc/docscrape.py at https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/main/scipy/_lib/_docscrape.py. From the file, we use:
ClassDocNumpyDocStringFunctionDocParameter
The use is exclusive to a deprecation utility and some places in scipy.stats.
It seems overkill to add the entirety of numpydoc as a submodule, such that keeping the current carbon copy is probably preferable.
Would it be feasible, though, for this file to be maintained separately as numpy/docscrape? On the one hand, this would reduce duplication, as we could add that as a submodule in SciPy. On the other hand, maybe this would require an unwarranted amount of maintenance/release effort, and we are better off living with the current state of things.
Thoughts?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing numpydoc/docscrape.py and the listed uses of ClassDoc, NumpyDocString, FunctionDoc, and Parameter, then inspect the linked SciPy copy and issue #21232. Determine whether maintaining a separate numpy/docscrape repository would reduce duplication without adding disproportionate maintenance or release effort; done means reaching a decision on that tradeoff.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100