Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
• Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
• Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
• Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
• Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
• Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
• At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

👋 Thank you for your draft pull request! Do you know that you can use [ci skip] or [skip ci] in your commit messages to skip running continuous integration tests until you are ready?

Given the long standing issue

• Move astropy.samp to pyvo pyvo#155

I will let @tomdonaldson review this one in case some of the Path changes are undesirable downstream.

I am still not convinced this is going to help in the effort of moving samp downstream. Should we just perpetually ignore this ruff rule for SAMP and close this without merge?

Not my call to make, obviously, but wouldn't that mean that this subpackage is essentially frozen until it's removed from the core library ?

Is that even still happening?
Either way, I'm not sure how this would affect that, except if people need to rebase branches / prevent them from diverging. That's what I was worried about, not changes in functionality.

Not that it's relevant to this PR... but @pllim, for Astropy why don't we split samp out now into a package astropy_samp? Then it's decoupled from us and the effort to move it into some other package can take however long it takes.

wouldn't that mean that this subpackage is essentially frozen until it's removed from the core library

Pretty much the state it is in for a while now. Nothing new here.

I'm not sure how this would affect that

If downstream does not care about this ruff rules and prefers non-Path code, then this change will just add churn to the transition. This is not a security fix or anything, so I don't see why we need to impose this for samp.

why don't we split samp out now into a package astropy_samp

Then it will sit rotten somewhere else. At least here, it rides along with our active CI until downstream move happens.

Is that even still happening?

It is still planned but alas, I cannot tell you when.

Pretty much the state it is in for a while now. Nothing new here.

I wasn't aware, so that's on me.

Assuming this patch worth anything to anyone, I cannot argue that it's worth the time it costs to debate this question, and I don't think closing this without merge would block any of the other PRs from this batch so please feel free to close this one.

so that's on me

Not at all. It is not advertised anywhere. And I am sorry if this was a waste of time.

Hi humans 👋 - this pull request hasn't had any new commits for approximately 4 months. I plan to close this in 30 days if the pull request doesn't have any new commits by then.

In lieu of a stalled pull request, please consider closing this and open an issue instead if a reminder is needed to revisit in the future. Maintainers may also choose to add keep-open label to keep this PR open but it is discouraged unless absolutely necessary.

If this PR still needs to be reviewed, as an author, you can rebase it to reset the clock.

If you believe I commented on this pull request incorrectly, please report this here.

let's just kill it now.