New package: ObservablePlotExperiment v1.0.0

[JuliaRegistrator]

• Registering package: ObservablePlotExperiment
• Repository: https://github.com/fonsp/ObservablePlotExperiment.jl
• Created by: @fonsp
• Version: v1.0.0
• Commit: b1a3251fe26b8cf18db4ffb0a02b068500843235
• Reviewed by: @fonsp
• Reference: fonsp/ObservablePlotExperiment.jl@b1a3251#commitcomment-151361386
• Description: Fast exploratory plotting – Julia wrapper for the Observable Plots library

[github-actions]

Hello, I am an automated registration bot. I help manage the registration process by checking your registration against a set of AutoMerge guidelines. If all these guidelines are met, this pull request will be merged automatically, completing your registration. It is strongly recommended to follow the guidelines, since otherwise the pull request needs to be manually reviewed and merged by a human.

1. New package registration

Please make sure that you have read the package naming guidelines.

2. AutoMerge Guidelines are all met! ✅

Your new package registration met all of the guidelines for auto-merging and is scheduled to be merged when the mandatory waiting period (3 days) has elapsed.

3. To pause or stop registration

If you want to prevent this pull request from being auto-merged, simply leave a comment. If you want to post a comment without blocking auto-merging, you must include the text [noblock] in your comment.

Tip: You can edit blocking comments to add [noblock] in order to unblock auto-merging.

[goerz]

this library will not be super well maintained! There will probably not be any docs, tests or any guarantees of that kind

That's a little at odds with what we normally require for registrations in General. The minimum requirement is usually that it's sufficiently well-documented so that someone can figure out how to start using it from the README or a linked documentation. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

If you're intending to follow semantic versioning, that note would also definitely be at odds with tagging as v1.0. The v1.0 tag indicates that you're going to be making SemVer compatibility promises, i.e., that the package has a stable API. In my mind, "stable API" implies a complete documentation, and probably also testing with pretty good coverage.

I appreciate wanting to share some experimental package with a wider audience, but I'm not sure that this is suitable for registration in General. Maybe with a bit more documentation and as a v0.1 package?

[goerz]

Closing in favor of #123181