issue_comments: 1372888139
This data as json
| 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/7418#issuecomment-1372888139 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7418 | 1372888139 | IC_kwDOAMm_X85R1JxL | 4160723 | 2023-01-05T22:46:05Z | 2023-01-05T22:46:05Z | MEMBER | I don't have strong opinions for or against including datatree in Xarray. It indeed makes sense if it is using many Xarray internals and if there are many existing or potential applications for it. Additional load (CI) is fine if datatree doesn't bring any extra dependency and won't do so in the near future (which seems to be the case).
Would it mean that if someone wants to later add any feature "x" or "y" into Xarray, they just need implementing the feature for Dataset (and possibly DataArray) and it will be guaranteed to work with Datatree? (I guess so but I'm not familiar enough with Datatree to know it for sure). Otherwise, if there is any extra implementation effort required to make feature "x" or "y" work with Datatree, then I'm concerned about the additional burden or obstacle for future contributors and maintainers. Or we could say that this is OK to leave datatree support and wait for someone to take care of it later, but I don't think it is ideal to have such non-synchronized state within Xarray itself. |
{
"total_count": 1,
"+1": 1,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
1519552711 |