New package: Aacgm v0.1.0

[JuliaRegistrator]

• Registering package: Aacgm
• Repository: https://github.com/Beforerr/Aacgm.jl
• Created by: @Beforerr
• Version: v0.1.0
• Commit: 84f4db31142a1384f7ae8175a3d85ebdbbbb7aeb
• Reviewed by: @Beforerr
• Reference: JuliaSpacePhysics/GeoAACGM.jl@84f4db3#commitcomment-158450369
• Description: Julia library for Altitude-Adjusted Corrected Geomagnetic (AACGM) coordinate system. Simple, fast, and accurate.
• Release notes:

Initial release of Julia's implementation of the Altitude-Adjusted Corrected Geomagnetic (AACGM) coordinate system

[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]

I'm going to assume that you chose the capitalization of the package name Aacgm as opposed to the all-caps AACGM only because that will get past the automatic checks in the registration bot. While I understand the impulse of not wanting to have to ask for a manual merge, I believe that choosing names "to make the bot happy" is an extremely unfortunate outcome, from a community perspective. Unlike AACGM, the spelling Aacgm does not make it clear that the name is an acronym (even if one might guess from the abundance of consonants). I'd be much happier retaining that information. Maybe we can get a thumbs-up from one of the full registry maintainers on AACGM. If you get an okay, would you be willing to rename the package to the all-caps version?

I would say that one very strong argument in favor of a manual merge of AACGM is that this registration would have gone though without complaint (nobody objected) under the name Aacgm, and AACGM is strictly a better name.

In addition:

• As a 1-to-1 Julia implementation of an existing C library, this almost falls under the "wrapper rule" that Julia packages that wrap an existing project can retain that project's name
• AACGM, while not pronounceable (I believe pronounceable acronyms are nearly always okay as package names), is quite distinctive, and I'd have trouble coming up with an alternative name. The one possible alternative might be to combine the acronym AACGM with another word that gives context. Something like GeoAACGM. That is often my recommendation for packages that implement a very domain-specific method tied to a well-recognized (in that domain) acronym. Personally, I'd still be okay with just AACGM as a package name.

[Beforerr]

Hi @goerz, thanks much for your detailed suggestion. Actually I would prefer GeoAACGM, since it is not exactly 1-to-1 implementation, the function name and the result (for similar functionality) are both different. Is this Ok?

[goerz]

That’s definitely okay, and should also merge without manual intervention!

[Beforerr]

This can be closed. New PR is here #132101