Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upGitHub is where the world builds software
Millions of developers and companies build, ship, and maintain their software on GitHub — the largest and most advanced development platform in the world.
Add Astropy to list of signatories #47
Conversation
|
Thanks, this looks good to me. I'm happy to merge once one of the people you tagged has had a look. Yes, I think it makes sense for the project order in the timeline to match that in the list of logos. But I'd like to find a better way to display the timeline information entirely - see #46. |
|
I've checked the dates and they match APE-10 and my expectations. Note that I did not run this locally. |
|
@takluyver - now @taldcroft has confirmed this looks ok, I think this is good to go |
| {content: '1.0 LTS', start: '2015-02-19', end: '2017-06-01', py2:true}, | ||
| {content: '1.1', start: '2015-12-11', end: '2016-06-23', py2:true}, | ||
| {content: '1.2', start: '2016-06-23', end: '2016-12-01', py2:true}, | ||
| {content: '1.3', start: '2016-12-01', end: '2017-06-01', py2:true}, |
eteq
Aug 23, 2016
1.3 "start" (and the "end" of 1.2) should probably be '2016-12-16', as that's what we currently have as the release date on https://github.com/astropy/astropy/wiki/Release-Calendar
|
Looks good to me too, @astrofrog, except for the minor tweak I just suggested above. |
|
It's great ! Have been working hard to get some change into PyPI legacy, right now we are hitting a PgSQL bottle neck, so if anyone as experience with SQL to optimize queries... |
|
Thanks, and welcome on board :-) |


The Astropy community has now approved APE 10, which describes the roadmap for releases until 2020, as well as which releases will drop support for Python 2:
https://github.com/astropy/astropy-APEs/pull/13/files
@eteq @taldcroft @kelle - could at least one of you double check this? (especially the dates)
Based on other PRs, I saw the projects are ordered by stars in the project list. Should the order be the same in
site.js?