CF Folks, One of the reasons for moving the CF Conventions and Standard Names to Github was so that the community could help support CF development.
The github fork/branch/pull-request process allows contributors to submit changes that can be discussed, modified, discussed some more and then eventually approved with the click of a button, taking the burden off of one or two people to make all the changes while leaving the current approval process intact. Since we have two different version tracked documents (the CF Standard Name list and the CF Conventions document), we should have two different repositories. Then for each repository, instead of multiple entire documents tracked separately, we should have just evolving document that can be tagged with release numbers when specific versions are approved. This is the way different versions are handled in git, and would allow us to see proposed and approved changes naturally. John Graybeal set up an example of what this would look like: https://github.com/graybealski/cf-conventions-work/commit/bb04b242216fa034be35ef6e61d5664d3eae1c1e I would also argue that we should version CF with the nearly-standard community practice of numbering system of major.minor.bugfix. This would allow errors (like typos) in an approved release (like 1.6.0) to be bugfixed to (1.6.1), which would mean "no new concepts were introduced, only bugs were fixed". What do people think? Thanks, Rich -- Dr. Richard P. Signell (508) 457-2229 USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd. Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598 _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
