PIG 1 - PIG purpose and guidelines#
Author: Christoph Deil
Created: Dec 20, 2017
Accepted: Jan 9, 2018
Discussion: GH 1239
PIG stands for “proposal for improvement of Gammapy”. This is PIG 1, describing the purpose of using PIGs as well as giving some guidelines on how PIGs are authored, discussed and reviewed.
What is a PIG?#
This article is about the design document . For other uses, see Pig (disambiguation)
Proposals for improvement of Gammapy (PIGs) are short documents proposing a major addition or change to Gammapy.
The primary goal of PIGs is to have an open and structured way of working on Gammapy, forcing the person making the change to think it through and motivate the proposal before taking action, and for others to have a chance to review and comment on the proposal. The PIGs will also serve as a record of major design decisions taken in Gammapy, which can be useful in the future when things are re-discussed or new proposals to do things differently arrive.
We expect that we will not use PIGs very often, but we think they can be useful e.g. in the following cases:
Outline design for something that requires significant work, e.g. on topics like “Modeling in Gammapy” or “High level user interface in Gammapy”. These PIGs can be rather long, i.e. more than one page, explaining the design in detail and even explaining which alternatives were considered and why the proposed solution was preferred.
Have a conscious decision and make sure all interested parties are aware for things that might be controversial and have long-term effects for Gammapy, e.g. when to drop Python 2 support or defining a release cycle for Gammapy. These PIGs can usually be very short, a page or less.
Writing a PIG#
Anyone is welcome to write a PIG!
PIGs are written as RST files in the
docs/development/pigs folder in the
main Gammapy repository, and submitted as pull requests.
Most discussions concerning Gammapy will happen by talking to each other directly (calls or face-to-face), or online on the mailing list or GitHub. If you’re not sure if you should write a PIG, please don’t! Instead bring the topic up in discussions first with other Gammapy developers, or on the mailing list, to get some initial feedback. This will let you figure out if writing a PIG will be helpful or not to realise your proposal.
When starting to write a PIG, we suggest you copy & paste & update the header at
the top of this file, i.e. the title, bullet list with “Author” etc, up to the
Abstract section. A PIG must have a number. If you’re not sure what the next
free number is, put
X and filename
pig-XXX.rst as placeholders, make the
pull request, and we’ll let you know what number to put.
Please make your proposal clearly and keep the initial proposal short. If more information is needed, people that will review it will ask for it.
In term of content, we don’t require a formal structure for a PIG. We do suggest that you start with an “Abstract” explaining the proposal in one or a few sentences, followed by a section motivating the change or addition. Then usually there will be a detailed description, and at the end or interspersed there will often be some comments about alternative options that have been discussed and explanation why proposed one was favoured. Usually a short “Decision” section will be added at the end of the document after discussion by the reviewers.
If you’re not sure how to structure your proposal, you could have a look at at
the APE template or some well-written APEs or PEPs. APE 5, APE 7 and
APE 13 are examples of “design documents”, outlining major changes /
extensions to existing code in Astropy. APE 2 and APE 10 are examples of
“process” proposals, outlining a release cycle for Astropy and a timeline for
dropping Python 2 support. PEP 389 is a good example proposing an improvement
in the Python standard library, in that case by adding a new module
argparse, leaving the existing
optparse alone for backward-compatibility
reasons. In Gammapy many PIGs will also be about implementing better solutions
and a major question will be whether to change and improve the existing
implementation, or whether to just put a new one, and in that case what the plan
concerning the old code is. PEP 481 is an example of a “process” PEP,
proposing to move CPython development to git and GitHub. For Gammapy, we might
also have “process” PIGs in the future, e.g. concerning release cycle or package
distribution or support for users and other projects relying on Gammapy. It’s
good to think these things through and write them down to make sure it’s clear
how things work and what the plan for the future is.
Writing a PIG doesn’t mean you have to implement it. That said, we expect that most PIGs will propose something that requires developments where someone has the intention to implement it within the near future (say within the next year). But it’s not required, e.g. if you have a great idea or vision for Gammapy that requires a lot of development, without the manpower to execute the idea, writing a PIG could be a nice way to share this idea in some detail, with the hope that in collaboration with others it can eventually be realised.
PIG review happens on the pull request on GitHub.
When a PIG is put up, an announcement with a link to the pull request should be sent both to the Gammapy mailing list and the Gammapy coordinator list.
Anyone is welcome to review it and is encouraged to share their thoughts in the discussion!
Please note that GitHub hides inline comments after they have been edited, so we suggest that you use inline comments for minor points like spelling mistakes only. Put your main feedback as normal comments in the “Conversation” tab, so that for someone reading the discussion later they will see your comment directly.
The final decision on any PIG is made by the Gammapy coordination committee. We expect that in most cases, the people participating in the PIG review will reach a consensus and the coordination committee will follow the outcome of the public discussion. But in unusual cases where disagreement remains, the coordination committee will talk to the people involved in the discussion with the goal to reach consensus or compromise, and then make the final decision.
PIGs can have a status of:
“draft” - in draft status, either in the writing or discussion phase
“withdrawn” - withdrawn by the author
“accepted” - accepted by the coordination committee
“rejected” - rejected by the coordination committee
When a PIG is put up for discussion as a pull request, it should have a status of “draft”. Then once the discussion and review is done, the status will change to one of “withdrawn”, “accepted” or “rejected”. The reviewers should add a section “Decision” with a sentence or paragraph summarising the discussion and decision on this PIG. Then in any case, the PIG should be merged, even if it’s status is “withdrawn” or “rejected”.
This PIG leaves some points open. This is intentional. We want to keep the process flexible and first gain some experience. The goal of PIGs is to help the Gammapy developer team to be more efficient, not to have a rigid or bureaucratic process.
Specifically the following points remain flexible:
When to merge a PIG? There can be cases where the PIG is merged quickly, as an outline or design document, even if the actual implementation hasn’t been done yet. There can be other cases where the PIG pull request remains open for a long time, because the proposal is too vague or requires prototyping to be evaluated properly. Note that this is normal, e.g. Python PEPs are usually only accepted once all development is done and a full implementation exists.
Allow edits of existing PIGs? We don’t say if PIGs are supposed to be fixed or live documents. We expect that some will remain fixed, while others will be edited after being merged. E.g. for this PIG 1 we expect that over the years as we gain experience with the PIG process and see what works well and what doesn’t, that edits will be made with clarifications or even changes. Whether to edit an existing PIG or whether to write a new follow-up PIG will be discussed on a case by case basis.
What to do if the coordination committee doesn’t agree on some PIG? For now, we leave this question to the future. We expect that this scenario might arise, it’s normal that opinions on technical solutions or importance of use cases or projects to support with Gammapy differ. We also expect that Gammapy coordination committee members will be friendly people that can collaborate and find a solution or at least compromise that works for everyone.
This PIG was discussed extensively in GH 1239, resulting in several improvements and additions. Everyone thought it was one honking good idea - let’s do more of those!