html_url,issue_url,id,node_id,user,created_at,updated_at,author_association,body,reactions,performed_via_github_app,issue
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/7204#issuecomment-1297143372,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7204,1297143372,IC_kwDOAMm_X85NUNZM,14808389,2022-10-31T14:05:04Z,2022-10-31T14:05:04Z,MEMBER,"I'm a bit split on this.

As far as I understand it, there were two main reasons for the switch of `dask` / `distributed`: the fact that they had imports like
```python
from .....scheduler import something
```
(which I agree is utter madness), and because they had modules named `core`, so the import was a bit ambiguous to read. I don't think either apply to us: our directory structure is sufficiently flat that we get at most two levels (`from .. import something`), and pretty unique file names.

We're also not in conflict with PEP8: if I read that correctly, it does say they recommend absolute imports, but then it also says that explicit relative imports are fine as well (and *not* just in the case where a complex structure makes explicit relative imports much more readable).

This means that unlike for `dask` one style does not have a clear advantage over the other, and this becomes a matter of preference.

As such, my vote would be +0.5 for [automated consistency](https://github.com/dask/distributed/issues/5889#issuecomment-1062913498), but -0.5 for absolute imports everywhere because for me explicit relative imports are actually a bit easier to read. However, I very much agree with using absolute imports of modules from the main package in tests (I think we have something like `from ..core.duck_array_ops import something` in one of the tests, which seems a bit weird?)","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,1420242462