I support this proposal and favor pushing forward on #148 rather than adding
more about leap seconds here.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@chris-little said:
> But UTC and the Gregorian calendar have leap seconds by definition.
Be careful here. The real-world Gregorian calendar **does not** have leap
seconds by definition.
In general world usage, "UTC" is a precise timekeeping system which includes
leap seconds. "Gregorian"
I've prepared a PR at #316. It mostly contains @JonathanGregory's wording with
two small changes identified by separate commits. Feel free to comment on the
proposed wording.
I wasn't entirely sure about how to handle the remaining things of the release
checklist, namely:
* Authors updated in
@d70-t pushed 1 commit.
6d131ef9c3b0cde76f72baa72310b786c275d490 Merge branch 'master' into
leap_seconds_clarification
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
See issue #313 for discussion of these changes.
# Release checklist
- [ ] Authors updated in `cf-conventions.adoc`?
- [ ] Next version in `cf-conventions.adoc` up to date? Versioning inspired by
@davidhassell @JonathanGregory The proposed wording does seem to bring clarity
to the CF text. However, I have a concern in that it seems to imply that
ignoring leap seconds in UTC and the Gregorian calendar is acceptable. I
recognise that it may have been, or still is, common practice. But UTC
Likewise, I have put off commenting, as the two of you have made good progress.
Now that things are clearly getting serious, I would suggest to
1. Avoid any comment about "synchronization" with the civil calendar (which I
think already is recognized in
Hello @d70 and @JonathanGregory,
I have been hitherto silently following this, and also very much like
Jonathan's suggested text
Dear Tobi @d70-t
Our usual practice is to do as much discussion in the issue as possible. Once
there is a PR, it's nonetheless still easier to follow the discussion if
comments on it are made in the issue, as that means there's only one place to
look. However, if you and I generally agree
Dear @JonathanGregory,
I think this is really good :+1:
I especially like that this description has a strong focus on describing the
mapping between the tuple of `year, month, day, hour, minute, second` and
`coordinate value` as it is currently handled in practice. In my opinion,
exactly this
10 matches
Mail list logo
