Add ColPrac guide #159
Merged
Add ColPrac guide #159
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Maybe also add a few words on the bors workflow? |
|
I prefer to try out these practices on one package before fullying adopting them. Dynamic PPL looks like a suitable candidate for experimentation. |
yebai
reviewed
Aug 24, 2020
yebai
approved these changes
Aug 24, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In my opinion, currently bug fixes and new features take too much time to propagate through the Turing ecosystem, leading to open issues about problems that are already fixed but not released etc. I guess it also leads to outdated docs more easily since we don't want to update the publicly accessible docs as long as the new features or syntax are not publicly available.
There was some discussion about adopting ColPrac in @willtebbutt's PR over at Turing (TuringLang/Turing.jl#1348), and I basically just added @willtebbutt's suggestions regarding the dev branch to the README explicitly, so that any possible contributor can spot this deviation from ColPrac.
IMO this could smoothen the development and release process quite a bit, and I'm very much in favour of adopting the same policy throughout the Turing ecosystem (although not all packages might need a separate dev branch).
I'm happy to hear your comments and suggestions 😃