Jon Duckworth

I'm a huge +1 for this and I'm happy to help with part of it if you want. > 5\. Merge the `api`, `extensions`, and `types` submodules into a single...

Sounds good. I can create new repos for the backends (`stac-fastapi-sqlalchemy` and `stac-fastapi-pgstac`). We will probably want to resolve the following PRs before we port the code over since they...

> @duckontheweb I can start moving code into `stac-fastapi-sqlalchemy`. I'll try to keep the repo structure as similar as possible. Sounds good. I’m wondering if we should actually fetch from...

I'm going to move the `pgstac` backend over to `stac-fastapi-pgstac` and preserve the Git history. I'll try to keep the repo structure as similar as possible, too. I will also...

> is it part of the plan to release 2.4.0 after the outstanding PRs are merged, and before the repo is broken apart? There seem to be a lot of...

I ported the code to `stac-utils/stac-fastapi-pgstac` and opened stac-utils/stac-fastapi-pgstac#1 to start trimming that down to just the PgSTAC backend.

> I've added labels to each issue to help figure out what to move to different repos. I'll open issues on the new `stac-fastapi-pgstac` repo for anything that is purely...

I can take a stab at trimming this repo down to just the core modules and distributing everything under a single package.

@geospatial-jeff There may be some issues around separation of concerns between this repo and the backend repos that we want to work out in `v2.5.0-a*` releases. These came up as...

> Do you think we have to do the same for item endpoints? I haven't looked at these in detail, but I imagine we will. I can start a PR...