Yuvi

Wow, great find @dhirschfeld! I think Hierarchical Namespaces would be *awesome* here

@jacobtomlinson yeah, agree. One easy way to test this would be to allow specifying fields under `metadata` in worker-template.yaml - not just under `spec`. That would let folks experiment with...

I played around with this. If you can get `__package__` to be 'ipynb.fs' _and_ have ipynb.fs imported, then you can just do `from .somenotebook import X` and it'll work same...

Right now, I tested this by having two files: wat/say.ipynb: ``` python def say(what): print(what) ``` wat/**init**.ipynb ``` python from .say import say __all__ = [say] ``` Now, from outside,...

So I did a bunch of work here, and it _kinda_ works. In test.ipynb: ``` def say(what): print(what) ``` In client.ipynb: ``` __package__ = 'ipynb.fs' import ipynb.fs from .test import...

Funkier than expected. Right now, if notebook A imports notebook B as: ``` python from ipynb.fs.full.notebookB import foo ``` and then notebook B imports notebook C as ``` python import...

Should probably not prioritize this until we get local filesystem imports solidly sorted out :D

Hmm, can we get away with supporting only top-level things? What do we do with: ``` python if a == 5: b = 6 C = b * 5 ```...

And what do you do with: ``` python if a == 5: b = 6 else: b = 9 doSomethingReallyExpensiveWithLotsOfSideEffects() C = b * 5 ``` Do we strip out...

@ellisonbg suggested we use notebook tags, and I like that _much_ better than magical solutions that involve AST munging or bytecode disassembly.