>From @zklaus in
>https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/344*issuecomment-1007108115__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!nzfFRuwavWqsiYAnVaPztGBBgkQDo_YadSDdBXX2OYtbfvHDKgQmoST4eJMEM8vFe2_WhuQ-6Z4$
> :
> I have added a fancified version of the version handling. Let me
It took me awhile to understand the meaning of the term `attribute-version`.
Perhaps `current-version-as-attribute`?
I like the definitive nature of updating the version from `1.10-draft` to
`1.10` for release and then immediately updating to `1.11-draft`. It leaves an
artifact (source zip
Re workflow, that was exactly my thinking. I have added this now to #344.
Re removing the attribute from the examples, I am not so sure. I think we
should probably consider categorizing examples in the conventions as either
"full examples" or "simple examples"/"excerpts" and then rather add the
@davidhassell agree with all your points. I also agree about the issue labels
of changes being agreed or not, that would be easy to do and add value.
When we consider these process changes agreed, we should document them, e.g. in
Rules.md or in the PR templates, in the form of a checklist.
That's clever, @zklaus. Thanks. I agree with @erget, and I am not an expert on
the build workflow.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Perhaps my previous comment was a bit obtuse. With regards to @erget's and
@davidhassell's comments
> [Daniel
>
@zklaus pushed 2 commits.
b5f746651571405b02008cbddc5ea04659fcd47b Correct typos and trailing whitespace
in workflow
ef00c0dc1484f1404cd65dc59c549a2ae72edc84 Add automatic final versioning to
workflow
--
View it on GitHub:
Dear @davidhassell
Thanks for explaining about milestones. As a test I have just attributed the
[closed issue about lossy compression by coordinate
We could always correct 1.9 using the procedure for errata so that 1.9 remains
valid - leaving the error in 1.9 and minting a new release to correct it would
be similar to deprecating 1.9, which would be new ground.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Dear @zklaus
As @adigitoleo says, there are no examples in the document which contain the
`Conventions` attribute except in sect 7.5 (examples 7.15 and 7.16). Therefore
I'd suggest you _delete_ the `Conventions` attribute in those two examples,
instead of correcting it. It's not necessary
Dear Jonathan,
You can see the milestone, but it's easy to miss, as it's not formatted the
same as a label:
@erget approved this pull request.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
12 matches
Mail list logo
