New package: ROOT2 v0.1.0

[JuliaRegistrator]

• Registering package: ROOT2
• Repository: https://github.com/JuliaHEP/ROOT2
• Created by: @grasph
• Version: v0.1.0
• Commit: 9169d44f3b8e8e2334449b679d0b5949500e5f04
• Reviewed by: @grasph
• Reference: package registration JuliaHEP/ROOT2#1 (comment)
• Description: Interface to the ROOT analysis framewok
• Release notes:

First release of the ex002-ROOT example of [WrapIt](https://github.com/grasph/wrapit) as a standalone package.

[github-actions]

Your new package pull request does not meet the guidelines for auto-merging. Please make sure that you have read the General registry README and the AutoMerge guidelines. The following guidelines were not met:

• Name does not meet all of the following: starts with an upper-case letter, ASCII alphanumerics only, not all letters are upper-case.
• Repo URL does not end with /name.jl.git, where name is the package name
• There is no compat entry for julia.
• The following dependencies do not have a [compat] entry that is upper-bounded and only includes a finite number of breaking releases: Conda, Scratch
• Package name similar to 1 existing package.
  1. Similar to Roots. Damerau-Levenshtein distance 1 between lowercased names is at or below cutoff of 1.

Note that the guidelines are only required for the pull request to be merged automatically. However, it is strongly recommended to follow them, since otherwise the pull request needs to be manually reviewed and merged by a human.

After you have fixed the AutoMerge issues, simply retrigger Registrator, which will automatically update this pull request. You do not need to change the version number in your Project.toml file (unless of course the AutoMerge issue is that you skipped a version number, in which case you should change the version number).

If you do not want to fix the AutoMerge issues, please post a comment explaining why you would like this pull request to be manually merged. Then, send a message to the #pkg-registration channel in the Julia Slack to ask for help. Include a link to this pull request.

Since you are registering a new package, please make sure that you have also read the package naming guidelines: https://pkgdocs.julialang.org/v1/creating-packages/#Package-naming-guidelines

---

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. You can edit blocking comments, adding [noblock] to them in order to unblock auto-merging.

[grasph]

automerge/decision complains the package name, ROOT2, is too similar to the existing Roots package. In my opinion, there is no confusion possible and the name is fine.

The name has been chosen after the name of the C++ framework ROOT to which this package provides Julia bindings. The suffix '2' is there to distinguish it from ROOT.jl, an earlier attempt to interface to this framework which supports Julia 1.1.x to 1.3.x only, due to discontinuation of Cxx.jl development.

Let me know if we can keep this name or if we need to invent a new one.

[goerz]

Agreed on Roots not being a problem…

But it's unfortunate to have ROOT2. It would be much preferable if this could be a continuation of the existing ROOT package (a breaking release 0.3). If @jpata is no longer actively maintaining ROOT, maybe they can add you as a new maintainer, and this package can just replace the existing code.

[grasph]

Latest ROOT.jl development were done by @oschulz.

The two packages use different approaches and have their own limitations: one is limited to some old Julia releases and this other is limited to a subset of the c++ framework classes. If Cxx.jl development is eventually resumed and support to recent Julia release added, then the ROOT.jl limitation will vanish.

So I think we should keep both packages, but I will be happy to hear @oschulz and @jpata's views.

[jpata]

ROOT2.jl looks to be using a conceptually similar approach as the original ROOT.jl based on wrappers. Therefore, it could make sense as a new version of the old package to not confuse the ecosystem too much.

I'm not maintaining ROOT.jl and would be happy to give it over to a group that's interested in maintaining it.

FYI @Moelf

[oschulz]

@grasph, I would also vote for replacing the old ROOT.jl (originally created by @jpata and later maintained by me) instead of creating a ROOT2.jl. ROOT.jl was based on Cxx.jl, which has been non-functional on maintained Julia versions for a long time. @grasph I'm giving you full admin rights on the ROOT.jl repo.

[oschulz]

Note: ROOT.jl is currently not registered anymore (it was in pre-Pkg3-times), but for continuity reasons we may still want to label the new version v0.3.0 instead of going back to v0.1.0 (@giordano , do you have any preferences here?). @grasph , please feel free to completely replace the current contents of the ROOT.jl repo with your CxxWrap-based version.

[grasph]

OK. Then, I will move the code to the ROOT.jl repository, change the version to 0.3.0, and trigger a new PR from there. Thanks @goerz to have made the suggestion.

[giordano]

Yeah, maybe ROOT.jl is slightly better: since there's currently no registered ROOT.jl, ROOT2.jl looks a bit surprising to users.

automerge/decision complains the package name

Side note, it's complaining also about many other things, like missing compat bounds.

[grasph]

Replaced by #108095.