I agree the deprecation in #314 is different than those currently in the
specification. Perhaps deprecation is not the right word for this usage. Maybe
instead errata or corrigenda?
Whatever words we use, I'm not sure CF should (or how it would) "disallow" the
#314 deprecation in earlier
@JonathanGregory pushed 2 commits.
d69482132f13cc0e720dc9f0086f05754604ee10 Merge remote-tracking branch
'upstream/master' into sigma-pr317
003d85616b628a2a23bf5d15294510ba3ac397f4 Add deprecations of versions before
1.9
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Dear @ethanrd and @davidhassell
I would say that the conformance document should provide our definitive list of
deprecations. A "deprecation" there is a recommendation not to do it; the CF
checker gives a warning about any recommendation that can be checked and isn't
followed. Any
I have updated the pull request
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/317__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!j5sMTufUekY0HbDkylC29GsZhOicrvn4eaiu8d7agPsFgB2NY8H-NKq-dNTw405OXfD2DYUwfRg$
to include the proposed deprecation text. If there are no further comments,
it
Hello,
Is it right that the deprecations that Ethan lists
(https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/328*issuecomment-846140071__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!hEdFbHQ7AQTo1vrmCimiywuaJ0AkwEDI3gsqODD8ZVcqeNsGUms7VVc9YDIXNN3uV1_pNk9Bzrc$
) are still allowed? i.e.
That's good for me, thanks @JonathanGregory
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
