Uploaded image for project: 'Request For Comments'
  1. Request For Comments
  2. RFC-305

Define lsst_apps, lsst_obs, lsst_distrib in pipelines.lsst.io

    Details

    • Type: RFC
    • Status: Withdrawn
    • Resolution: Done
    • Component/s: DM
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      We do not currently have a definition of the lsst_apps, lsst_obs, and lsst_distrib meta-packages in our documentation. It seems to me that these meta-packages are for the convenience of organizing the Stack code and might change from release to release, so they should be defined in pipelines.lsst.io. (A possible alternative might be to define them by fiat in LDM-148, but I think that is less desirable.) I propose to do so at the beginning of https://pipelines.lsst.io/install/index.html.

      Pointers to the definitions should be placed in the DM Developer Guide developer.lsst.io, including Adding a Package, the lsstsw documentation, and even the Python Style Guide.

      Proposed definitions:

      • lsst_apps contains the Science Pipelines algorithmic code that we expect to use in production and its dependencies, including any packages needed to test and verify the others, such as a minimal set of obs_* observatory/camera definition packages.
      • lsst_obs contains all supported obs_* packages.
      • lsst_distrib contains additional LSST-supported software related to the Alert, Calibration Products, and Data Release Productions, including the following not in lsst_apps or lsst_obs:
        • Optional algorithmic code and plugins not expected to be used in production or testing
        • Production control software and configurations for organizing large-scale computations
        • Interfaces to other operational services

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            Where do we want to go with this RFC? Are we adopting with some triggered tickets to do the reorg?

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - Where do we want to go with this RFC? Are we adopting with some triggered tickets to do the reorg?
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            My understanding is that we're waiting on a more detailed proposal from Frossie Economou & Simon Krughoff before we are ready to adopt (or otherwise) this.

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - My understanding is that we're waiting on a more detailed proposal from Frossie Economou & Simon Krughoff before we are ready to adopt (or otherwise) this.
            Hide
            krughoff Simon Krughoff added a comment -

            OK, sorry. I didn't realize we were holding things up (though I obviously did volunteer to put something together). I'll try to do that this week.

            Show
            krughoff Simon Krughoff added a comment - OK, sorry. I didn't realize we were holding things up (though I obviously did volunteer to put something together). I'll try to do that this week.
            Hide
            frossie Frossie Economou added a comment -

            I am hereby unvolunteering Simon Krughoff

            This seems to be a problem that is most appropriate for the new release manager to tackle (who is not SQuaRE). If we need to resolve this on a shorter timeline perhaps architecture can field something more tuned to the operational release and deployment cadences?
            s
            I just want to deprecate lsst_distrib. How it is done I have no strong opinion on.

            Show
            frossie Frossie Economou added a comment - I am hereby unvolunteering Simon Krughoff This seems to be a problem that is most appropriate for the new release manager to tackle (who is not SQuaRE). If we need to resolve this on a shorter timeline perhaps architecture can field something more tuned to the operational release and deployment cadences? s I just want to deprecate lsst_distrib. How it is done I have no strong opinion on.
            Hide
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment -

            We've had problems achieving consensus on this and do not have sufficient cycles (particularly in SQuaRE) to resolve this at this point. We will wait to rethink this until the new Release Manager comes on board to offer fresh eyes and energy.

            Show
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment - We've had problems achieving consensus on this and do not have sufficient cycles (particularly in SQuaRE) to resolve this at this point. We will wait to rethink this until the new Release Manager comes on board to offer fresh eyes and energy.

              People

              • Assignee:
                ktl Kian-Tat Lim
                Reporter:
                ktl Kian-Tat Lim
                Watchers:
                Colin Slater, Frossie Economou, Gabriele Comoretto, Jim Bosch, John Parejko, John Swinbank, Jonathan Sick, Kian-Tat Lim, Simon Krughoff, Tim Jenness, Wil O'Mullane
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                11 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:
                  Planned End:

                  Summary Panel