Proposed affiliated package: martini

[kyleaoman]

Martini is a modular package for the creation of synthetic resolved HI line observations (data cubes) of smoothed-particle hydrodynamics simulations of galaxies. I make extensive use of astropy.units, astropy.coordinates and astropy.fits, plus some other bits and bobs. I've just completed a comprehensive overhaul to a v2.0 with CI, docs, etc. so it seems like a good time to request a review and perhaps for martini to become an affiliated package.

[kyleaoman]

@pllim just want to pop my head in after a couple of months - next step is to find a reviewer, I guess?

[pllim]

Hello! I'll have to ping @dhomeier and @WilliamJamieson , our current editors. We apologize for the delay!

[dhomeier]

Apologies for the delay on my part as well, and thank you for your submission!
The normal next step would indeed be finding a reviewer, which was a bit more challenging for this field of radio astronomy.
However there is an additional delay right now as we are discussing an integration of our affiliated package structure with pyOpenSci (details about that in astropy/astropy-project#334). So I have put the traditional review process on hold for requests that are not under review yet. I should have communicated that sooner.
We are having a meeting just this week to discuss the details of such an integration, and I hope we will be able to see a timeline for this progress; so assuming there is not too much additional delay, I'd mark this request for review under the new system.
This would give your package additional visibility through pyOpenSci and JOSS, so hopefully make it worth the extra waiting time. Note that you would become one of the "guinea pigs" as pointed out under Future Work, but if this whole process should take too long or you just prefer not to have it delayed any further, I would proceed with looking for a reviewer in our current scheme.
Thank you for your patience!

[kyleaoman]

@dhomeier Thanks for the update. I'm in no particular hurry so happy to wait for the new process to start working. Will check back in a month or two if I haven't heard anything else by then 👍

[WilliamJamieson]

I have found a reviewer for this package, but they have not finished their review yet.

[kyleaoman]

Hi @WilliamJamieson @dhomeier, just want to check in again. Is this PR still the relevant way to approach affiliated package status (or is that still a thing)? I had a quick glance over the pyOpenSci discussion and it seems to have concluded, so just wondering what I should do next. I'm considering publishing in JOSS either in addition or as an alternative to this PR, if you have any comments on that they're welcome.

[hamogu]

Hi @kyleaoman , I've just been confirmed as one of the astropy affiliated editors and we're transferring our review process to pyopensci.

Since you are interested in publishing to JOSS anyway, I suggest you go through our new process with PyOpenSci (https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-submission?tab=readme-ov-file) and select (or write in plain text if the field is not yet in the template) that this is a package form the astropy ecosystem.
The pyopensci review is very similar to what we used to do for astropy affiliated packages with the added bonus that your package will be automatically accepted into JOSS.

Once you've opened a PR to pyopensci, we'll take is from there and you can close this PR.

(Of course, since you've opened this PR before we switched to pyopensci, you can choose to follow the old astropy process instead. Just let me know.)

[kyleaoman]

Opened a submission issue at pyOpenSci: pyOpenSci/software-submission#164