Moritz E. Beber

@matthiaskoenig some of the points I would have answered were already made by @cdanielmachado :slightly_smiling_face: Additionally, I think you highlight an important design choice with the following point: > Simulation...

I intended this as a clean slate discussion because I think that an implementation of a core package that closely follows SBML leaves plenty of creative freedom to build on...

> Maybe @bdelepine 's suggestion covers this scenario, sorry if I don't fully understand how pip works. Baudoin's suggestion does indeed cover this because a normal installation of cobra would...

Hey all, For those interested in continuing this discussion and planning concrete next steps, @bgoli and I will meet online at 11:00 CET on Wednesday March 24 in the context...

While I welcome any input on whether or not this is a wanted/needed/desirable approach, I don't see how it would leave cobrapy in a slightly broken state? I would envision...

I agree that there is an element of risk. I do see the risk as being much lower compared to introducing a completely new solver backend, though. It means for...

> Hi Niko (@phantomas1234), any follow up on this? The idea behind this issue is still very much on my mind but I simply do not have the time to...

I don't remember the details now but @BenjaSanchez recently worked on gene labels as he's trying to make the SBML output from the COBRA Toolbox and cobrapy be the same.

@yseif first of all thank you for the contribution! I agree with Greg that this is another perfect example for a "cookbook" kind of contribution. Just that we don't have...

@hredestig and I discussed at length today the merits and pit falls of reorganizing the cobrapy package completely. While we both agree that it'd be very nice to have, we're...