Thank you for the comments @AndersMS and @erget.
I like the concise version too, I would just keep my version of the "As an
example ..." paragraph even if it is more verbose because it states exactly
what the attribute means, hopefully leaving no room for misinterpretation.
The "{...] using
This review appears to have stalled. What can we do to get this going agian?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I have made the above changes in
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/331__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!j38U3qLQlY_X0BZe90tjIihK2dPqHw10OAiefFShqA-jvFxq5MnK0f5JSKxZWbrBetRQ8wtDZnw$
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly
@JonathanGregory pushed 1 commit.
bd7498d3625a1ee464f375952bfd202f7fbc4371 remove redundant text about the
standard calendar, clarify the deprecation of year and month units
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
I realise that we agreed to delete the existing excerpt from the UDUNITS that
describes the `standard` calendar, because we have put that information in the
description of that calendar. I will modify the PR.
I agree with the point @zklaus makes about the deprecated units. Would the
following
@oceandatalab (Sylvain) & @AndersMS - I am in favour of the shorter text; in
fact, perhaps one could combine these 3 paragraphs into 1:
> The accuracy of the reconstituted coordinates will mainly depend on the
> degree of subsampling, the choice of interpolation method and the choice of
> the
@zklaus has made the following comment on the PR
> Perhaps this is a good opportunity to update the second udunits.dat link in
> the following line 217 as well.
> I also wonder if we should be explicit in whether CF follows udunits in the
> definitions of year and month. The way these two
Dear Sylvain (@oceandatalab)
Thank you very much for your proposed wording of the Computational Precision
text, which I think is a sound way to formulate the meaning and usage of the
`computational_precision` attribute.
I like the detailed rationale you have provided and support having the
@AndersMS pushed 1 commit.
2becd52c5f81920fa24b495de50a17cb0f488c5f Improve wording of Tie Point Index
Mapping (Change 8)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@zklaus commented on this pull request.
> We recommend that the unit **`year`** be used with caution. The Udunits
> package defines a **`year`** to be exactly 365.242198781 days (the interval
> between 2 successive passages of the sun through vernal equinox). __It is not
> a calendar
Thanks, @JonathanGregory. Your PR looks good to me.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Thanks to @JonathanGregory for putting together the pull request that will
close this issue (as well as #298). This PR (#331) should be merged on 23rd
July, three weeks from today, if no concerns are raised.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this
@AndersMS pushed 1 commit.
376fd271d9314aea350c79773063acc7601327b8 Update Example 8.6 to correctly
specify one dimension interpolation for X and Y
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
I have prepared
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/331__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!mNWKCPD7VbPgGv_jRavr4GE1sCQvz38p0d0wECjY2cjx2_dyEClYOuM6TDVCriSLMMu-I2CF82c$
for this issue and
See issue #298 and #319 for discussion of these changes.
# Release checklist
- [Y] Authors updated in `cf-conventions.adoc`?
- [Y] Next version in `cf-conventions.adoc` up to date? Versioning inspired by
15 matches
Mail list logo
