Pixi migration
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Jinja
- Stars
- 2
- Forks
- 2
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Should we use pixi for all our packages, not just ess* packages?
This is the overview of the packages who uses tox or pixi.
| Dev Tool | Packages |
|---|---|
| tox | plopp, esslivedata, copier_template, scippneutron, scipp, mplcanvas, tof, chexus, sciline, cyclebane, scippnexus |
| pixi | ess*, scitiff |
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
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 with the issue's tox-versus-pixi package overview and determine which package configurations are affected. Clarify whether the goal is a migration for every listed package or only selected packages; done should be an agreed scope and migration plan, since no files or tests are named.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- build-system
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100