Looks good to me, thanks. I would still advocate for some clear process for
contributors, in either issues or PRs, to ping the Governance Committee or
other group of GitHub stewards about status of contributions, but as I said
earlier, GitHub Teams [don't currently support
@JonathanGregory thanks for your input. Understand about the scope. I will
create a new issue to handle my third point regarding communication/feedback
pathways for contributors.
Regarding the other two suggestions I made, if additional linkages between the
Rules page and CONTRIBUTING.md are
@dblodgett-usgs @roy-lowry thanks for assisting/reviewing!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/264#issuecomment-635934974
This list forwards relevant
@erget and others, I have some ideas for how to improve handling
contributions/associated processes and a few GitHub recommendations. Hopefully
this is the right place to comment vs. opening a new issue.
This is from the perspective of a relative newcomer interested in making minor
@dblodgett-usgs @davidhassell sorry to ping you both directly, but since you've
both been involved in discussions about this PR or its predecessor #235, it was
my best option.
I realize that I didn't follow the [rules](http://cfconventions.org/rules.html)
exactly when proposing these changes
@davidhassell This has been superseded by #216 and can be closed.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/205#issuecomment-626814270
This list forwards
Thanks @roy-lowry.
@dblodgett-usgs I don't know whom else from the community to ping for review of
this. Since the original PR was on the books for quite a while, can I request
this move ahead to consider for merge? Thanks!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
Closed #235.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/235#event-3300735297
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
@roy-lowry @dblodgett-usgs
Apologies, but I've managed to totally clobber the branch associated with this
PR in attempting to bring it in line with the master branch, squash commits,
etc. Clearly went above my GitHub PR updating abilities.
I created a new branch that is current with master
Replaces: #235
See issue #216 for discussion of these changes, specifically in [this
comment](https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/216#issuecomment-564107540)
suggesting adding to the CF documentation usage examples for status_flag,
quality_flag, and related QC flag standard
@mwengren pushed 30 commits.
ab60a6b139c9930ce985a34d932abb1770fe8b19 coord value order for CRS WKT
a611a8352829e384d35c9423f02a2b36f3647f3d editorial updates for clarity
2a44cccf65fa0b1dedffa41ebafe4e03d3d2fa6b 2.3 must -> should
c3fa6fd5ac220a707250b7523bfbd6c1cdb103d6 Move to Requirements
@roy-lowry Thanks for the review.
@dblodgett-usgs I believe I need to rebase this branch against the master
branch as it contains some outdated fixes to the docs that were already merged
in #240. Had planned to address this but hadn't yet.
Please hold off on merging until I can tackle this,
@JonathanGregory Yes! And fixed a dead link in the table of contents. Simple
stuff. Thanks for reviewing!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Ping... anyone? This relatively minor change hasn't received much commentary,
and it's well past the three week threshold for review and merge. There is in
fact an ordering issue with Example 3.4 and 3.5, as shown here:
@feggleton @japamment @ngalbraith @roy-lowry and others: thanks for publishing
the names, contributing to the discussion, and helping steer this through to
acceptance!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Thanks @zklaus will give that a try next time, since I already made a
replacement PR in this case.
#240 is good to go for this particular fix, please consider as the docs should
make a lot more sense with the examples now in the correct order.
--
You are receiving this because you are
@davidhassell I just created a new PR #240 since the existing one had
accumulated a messy commit history, please review that instead.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Also, fix broken link in List of Examples
See issue #238 for discussion of these changes.
Fixes #238.
For consideration either before 1.8 docs are released or hopefully in a patch
release subsequently if these have missed deadlines for inclusion in 1.8.
You can view, comment on, or merge this
Closed #239.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/239#event-3020070990
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
@mwengren pushed 1 commit.
9f961e28a16a81a20ff36daad4723554e8cdc59a Change example #3.5 reference in text
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@davidhassell Ah, yes, you are right. I had been paying attention to the
introductory text to the examples, which did not flow. The problem was rather
that the examples were out of order. Now Example 3.4 'A flag variable, using
flag_masks' is properly cited immediately before, and Example
@mwengren pushed 1 commit.
9acfcfd5f803167d7ed1afa3c8c259b11413ce4a Swap examples 3.4 and 3.5 instead of
paragraph text
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@ngalbraith I think we added the 'both automated and manual' clause to account
for the case in Jessica's example in the above
[comment](https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/216#issuecomment-581714109),
where there's a test with the generic `quality_flag` name that is manually
I put this issue and accompanying PR together rather quickly at the end of the
day yesterday, so apologies for the incompleteness. Re-reading the README
again I see I can link more or less to the exact location in the draft version
of the docs that I believe is incorrect (and PR #239
Also, fix broken link in List of Examples
See issue #238 for discussion of these changes.
Fixes #238.
For consideration either before 1.8 docs are released or hopefully in a patch
release subsequently if these have missed deadlines for inclusion in 1.8.
You can view, comment on, or merge this
# Title
Resolve some errors in the current master branch of CF 1.8 docs
# Moderator
@mwengren
# Requirement Summary
This issue is simply a pointer to a PR to fix to some issues I found in new
text added in Chapter 3.5 sometime since last release of the documentation. I
separated these more
@mwengren pushed 1 commit.
55a2dece30e8feb6db609d543cbcfd09b3627367 Improved wording of status and
quality flag section and example (Ch 3.4)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
See issue #216 for discussion of these changes, specifically in the [comment on
Dec
10](https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/216#issuecomment-564107540)
suggesting adding to the CF documentation usage examples for `status_flag`,
`quality_flag`, and related QC flag standard
@ngalbraith regarding the `references` attribute, I went back and checked
[Appendix
A](http://cfconventions.org/cf-conventions/cf-conventions.html#attribute-appendix)
and was relieved to see it's valid as both a global and variable attribute. I
don't know if there might still be software
@ngalbraith for the upcoming version of our 'IOOS Metadata Profile' that
incorporates these new standard names into a quality flagging scheme for
QARTOD, we decided to leverage the `references` attribute to suggest data
providers link to external web pages or web-accessible files (e.g. JSON)
@roy-lowry Ah, poor quality control on the quality control examples! I fixed
the error in my
[example](https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/216#issuecomment-563339265)
above.
> Using alphanumeric sorting of labels to establish semantic relationships is a
> technique I used
@roy-lowry I was going to comment about the need to remove the deprecated
`status_flag` standard name modifier from the conventions document, but I see
you agree that's necessary too. That will help eliminate some confusion for
newcomers to CF's ancillary variable/flag syntax and how to
32 matches
Mail list logo
