Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactoring for Tableschema #41

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jul 6, 2020
Merged

Refactoring for Tableschema #41

merged 6 commits into from
Jul 6, 2020

Conversation

JDziurlaj
Copy link
Contributor

@JDziurlaj JDziurlaj commented Jun 29, 2020

The datapackage remains temporarily (until we can verify that we no longer need it)

@JDziurlaj JDziurlaj requested a review from jungshadow July 3, 2020 13:10
Copy link
Member

@jungshadow jungshadow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@jungshadow
Copy link
Member

@JDziurlaj Looks good to me and feel free to merge when ready. Made me think of a couple of things:

  • Should we have a default/recommended linter/formatter/validator set up in our coding environments (or as a pre-commit hook)?
  • Should we mark the datapackage as deprecated?

I don't think these are holdups for the merge. Just thinking aloud. I'll open them up as their own issues for discussion.

@JDziurlaj JDziurlaj merged commit c5aeba1 into master Jul 6, 2020
@JDziurlaj JDziurlaj deleted the dev branch July 6, 2020 12:49
@JDziurlaj
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think at least one of our tools still expects a datapackage (maybe the SQLite importer?) But yes, I think depreciation makes sense.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Consider adopting tableschema pattern metadata Separate tableschema from datapackage
2 participants