Dear all I think I must not have missed a point somewhere. Version control is not the same as branches, is it. We already have version control and maybe we could add a third digit to it if we corrected defects between versions. I do not see a need for branches in developing the convention. In software development you need branches when different changes overlap and are being developed concurrently. That has hardly ever been the case for the CF convention, as far as I remember, though I think there might at the moment be a couple of trac tickets that modify the same part of the document. This has arisen because there are so many agreed trac tickets waiting to be actioned, and is a reason why we need the next version (CF-1.7) to be finalised. Moreover in the end you have to reconcile concurrent developments, and I would say that in the case of the CF convention it would hardly make sense to develop two changes separately and then reconcile them subsequently - it would be much more sensible to reconcile and probably combine them as they were being discussed, I would argue. Thus I think we are fine with the existing system that agrees changes independently, and then combines them all to make a new version.
I don't know about what software systems are best suited for it. I think that trac is a good system for it, because it records the whole discussion and it's easy for anyone to read and contribute to it without understanding anything except simple text markup (and even that is inessential). But if other systems do the same things and have other advantages, that would be fine. We are using trac really much like email, but it's easier to keep the threads separate. (We did use the email list for conventions changes before we used trac.) I'm still unclear about my previous question. Is it envisaged that many people might prepare a new version of the document with a trac ticket implemented in it, and then request to upload it? Who would do the proof-reading and give the final OK that the change was as agreed in the ticket? It would be helpful to know what folk at PCDMI think who manage the current system. Is this way of doing it better than having a single editor, as we do now? The convention is not like a large software package. It is something we all write together, in effect, rather than something we all contribute to independently. I suppose there must be parallels with other standards documents. The CF convention and the standard name table are versioned and managed independently. The convention and conformance documents are synchronised. The standard name table is synchronised with the area types table and the standard name guidelines. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
