Yay! Please ensure the package has some docs and tests, and no extraneous directories or table file entries, as K-T and John point out. Looking forward to borrowing lots of what you've done for analysis_ap, so the more good life choices you can make here, the happier we will all be!

Meredith's comment suggests to me that we might want an `analysis_base` class, if the drp and ap codes are going to be sharing things (I don't know if they will, but it's worth considering).

Meredith's comment suggests to me that we might want an `analysis_base` class, if the drp and ap codes are going to be sharing things

Yup, this was at least vaguely part of the plan all along - we just decided to stand up something that worked before trying to figure out which bits we might want to factor out into a more general package.  I'd like to keep that separate from this RFC, but I think it might make sense to do either while standing up a corresponding AP package or just after (with either some duplication or a AP->DRP dependency as we work through the refactoring).

I'd be interested to hear Sophie Reed 's thoughts on whether the boundary between DRP-specific and more general stuff has ended up pretty clear already in the current version, though.

Sophie Reed is there a hold up on this RFC that is preventing it from being adopted?

Implementation ticket: https://jira.lsstcorp.org/browse/DM-32711