matterhorn103

We could just fall back to the main repo URL. Or, the script in avogadro/plugins that extracts the metadata from the plugins’ TOML files to generate the index could automatically generate the appropriate issues URL for any plugin that is on GitHub and doesn’t manually specify project.urls.issues.

Not sure I’m a huge fan of something that’s Python-specific, encodes the metadata using Python code, and is a solution specific to that one implementation. This CITATION.cff is GitHub’s own solution, but it is at least supported by Zotero and Zenodo. But I don’t have strong feelings. It’s a shame there’s no standardized way to handle companion publications, really – it would be good if citations of academic papers were part of the SPDX Bill of Materials specification, for example.

Great ideas!

Given the counts that have accumulated within less than three weeks, I think a count of 30-day/monthly downloads would be both fair and typical. I suppose you’d add that to the stats file alongside the all and recent counts?

Python packaging has standard URL labels that include an issues label, so we should look for project.urls.issues (and potentially the aliases listed at the linked page too, e.g. bugs) and encourage people to use that mechanism.

I’d suggest we also provide a general link to the plugin’s repository as well, which we don’t have to rely on the pyproject.toml for, we already have that info in the plugin database.

Here I’d also suggest reusing the standard mechanism, encouraging authors to use the project.keywords field and then extracting that. We’ll need the search to match on substrings of the plugin name too though, in case a plugin doesn’t specify any keywords.

Isn’t that already possible by sorting on the Features column?