Hi all - As I mentioned in issue #314, there are a number of deprecations in
the current CF specification. Two involve backwards compatibility with COARDS
and have been in CF since version 1.0, one of these involves non-compliance
with Udunints and the other with temporary(?) deprecation in the
> Should we implement this change without the deprecation, and rely on Ethan's
> new issue #328 to take care of it later?
I was suggesting moving forward with the deprecation language for this issue
and revisiting it once item #328 comes to a conclusion. There are a few other
deprecation items
Thanks for your clarifications @JonathanGregory and @zklaus.
I think I've understood this more clearly now.
And I'm happy to say, I'm agreeing with what you are both saying !
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Dear Klaus et al.
@zklaus commented as follows in
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/314__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!nHDyAHj9kmDbf6NXvb4CglGp1Vw7hYsmYYYbIWc5lyf905JeuRioNjUFXRz1nR3fHYFBanWeMMI$
:
> I was a bit confused by how the term deprecation was
I will reply to Klaus @zklaus in Ethan's new issue
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/328__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!ibQ4P3meoyrC9uwAd1iip77AQk67EcOV7rCcsNq4DIbGxVqkE4rDRfGMb24jQycKgNfma2--WjM$
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to
Dear @ethanrd
When we added that part to the rules, this situation had never arisen. I
believe this is the first time. As I said in
Should we implement this change without the deprecation, and rely on Ethan's
new issue
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/328__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!kH6ZExMv8GfrsQ1rwaFmv7R6TLZDF_DgB7U5nt79UJw9BKMrQV3U-Av7AYUE9TkeingvS3__8XI$
to take care of it
