issue_comments: 741949159
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/4461#issuecomment-741949159 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/4461 | 741949159 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDc0MTk0OTE1OQ== | 1197350 | 2020-12-09T18:02:03Z | 2020-12-09T18:02:11Z | MEMBER | I think @shoyer has laid out the options in a very clear way. I weakly favor option 2, as I think it preferable in terms of software architecture and our broader roadmap for Xarray. However, I am cognizant of the significant effort that @martindurant has put into this, and I don't want his effort to go to waste. Some mitigating factors are: - The example I gave above (https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/4461#issuecomment-741939277) shows that one high-impact feature that users want (async capabilities in Zarr) already works, albiet with a different syntax. So this PR is more about convenience. - Presumably the knowledge about Xarray that Martin has gained by implementing this PR is transferrable to a different context, and so we would not be starting from scratch if we went with 2. |
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
709187212 |