Repository navigation
GSOC IDEA DISCUSSION #2573
Closed
SachinDurairaj06
started this conversation in
General
Replies: 2 comments
|
I don't think there is enough here for a GSoC project. Also this year we have capacity for only one project. |
0 replies
|
Also, the wiki page does say
and you are technically contacting us before submitting the proposal, the goal of that note is ensuring there is enough time for discussion on the idea and its scope before the application is submitted. A couple days before the deadline is not enough time for that. |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Hi everyone,
I’m interested in preparing a GSoC proposal related to the recent modularization of the ArviZ ecosystem into arviz-base, arviz-stats, and arviz-plots.
While contributing earlier to the conda-forge packaging discussion around the arvizverse split (particularly dependency structure and plotting-backend variants), I noticed that there are still some inconsistencies between pip extras, backend-specific plotting requirements, and conda-forge feedstock mappings. These differences can make reproducible installation workflows slightly harder for downstream users depending on whether they install via pip or conda and which plotting stack they rely on.
For GSoC, I’m exploring whether a project focused on improving dependency parity and backend consistency across the modular ArviZ ecosystem would be useful. A possible scope could include:
Since this connects directly to the arviz-base / stats / plots transition, I wanted to ask whether this direction fits current priorities for ArviZ this year and where improvements would be most impactful.
Tagging @OriolAbril and @aloctavodia for feedback in case this aligns with ongoing packaging or ecosystem-level efforts.
All reactions