Jonathan, I wonder if we might have a webinar to demonstrate/talk about the concepts we envision here. We've done a lot of typing, but I get with 30 min together online I bet we could end up with consensus.
-Rich On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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
