Dear Rich > 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.
I'd like to understand better how these processes will interact. We have trac tickets to propose changes and to correct mistakes. By the time the trac ticket is concluded, it should state exactly what textual changes are going to be made. All that then remains is to make these changes in the document. That is, there is no need for discussion, modification or approval in the github process, as far as I can see, because there is nothing left to be discussed or approved once the "current approval process" on trac has been finished, except for proof-reading the changes to make sure they were made exactly according to the trac ticket. Is that what you mean? It might be suggested that we don't need defect tickets if corrections can be proposed through github. However, I think we do still need them, because it is not always obvious whether something is actually a mistake. One person might think they are proposing a correction, whereas another might regard it as a material change. Such discussions have occurred on trac defect tickets, so I think we still need that process. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
