[RFC] Transfer this category to stac-utils discussions #1218
Replies: 1 comment 4 replies
-
|
No strong feeling, but having a central place seems nice as I have issues keeping track of this discussion board already so would likely miss even more if we split up. I'm wondering whether renaming the category would make sense? We could also add more... Python, R, JS, Rust, C#, Go, ... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yeah, I'd be fine with that as well -- to me, it feels more natural to have spec-related discussions here, and code-related discussions in stac-utils, but the decrease in visibility is a downside for sure. If we rename this category that would be Good Enough™ for now, IMO, as there aren't really that many discussions to warrant a breakout into language-specific categories (yet). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@m-mohr if you have permissions, can you update this category to just be "STAC Software" or something similar? That should be fine for now. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@gadomski Done. Also changed from Q&A for Open-ended discussion style as it seems we don't really have Q&A content in here right now. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Summary
We will enable discussions on the stac-utils organization and transfer discussions in the "PySTAC" category of the stac-spec discussions there.
Motivation
PySTAC doesn't fully capture the scope of this discussion category -- we've used this to talk about stactools, stactools-packages, and more. I'd like to create some more documentation around the process for including a repository in stac-utils, standardizing tooling for Python stac-utils repos, and more, and it is starting to feel a little strange to keep creating RFCs here.
Drawbacks
We're creating more places where people have to look for information.
Rationale and alternatives
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions