Closed #343 via #344.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/343*event-6117012815__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!ip9TJLLpV_n9H6tOPvhntEGLBVsdsVivq4BIsWGGEKHJOX5HB8Os0ha5aKLlpiIUFqezrmtcqzg$
You are
Reminder set. If you have a problem, speak in the next 3w or forever hold your
peace!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Thanks for the heads-up, @JonathanGregory. I have updated #344 accordingly.
I have also addressed @ethanrd's suggestion of making the attribute name more
explicit.
Given the general support and the fact that no more comments seem to be
outstanding, I think we can start the clock and merge the
Dear @JonathanGregory,
such a clash is called a `conflict` in git lingo and indeed does occur. But it
is also one of the most common problems in versioning and as such one of the
core abilities and raison d'etre of git is to help with their resolution.
So don't worry, this will be easy to
Dear @zklaus
I've done a [pull
request](https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/350__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!h_4-L8njdnQuYrvIVsBWFfZZyiaEw7GB2tpt1NklqxCHzaGqwx_s6szUJC6W_hRzXiEzSDkGdyU$
) to delete the `Conventions` attribute in the two examples, [as
Thanks, @JonathanGregory, your points make sense to me. Let's take that
discussion in the other issue and move forward here with the corrected
attributes in place.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Dear @zklaus
I don't think there are any "full examples" in the document. (This [new
issue](https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/348__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!lZI1e-2iPbokQ-LIbAFuEADT9eEzUL6k3p_RYXQdo1Ee5Nx1UkSEuM8EXIqqHr3JsxfhxSZhQl8$
) is relevant to
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
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
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
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:
>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
I prefer the more terse formulation. Replacing the space with a dash, so
`1.10-draft`, would be similar to a well known pattern for software versioning
of appending `-SNAPSHOT` or `-mmddhhss` to a version number. Perhaps a bit
more obvious than `1.10 draft` but still terse.
--
Reply to
Personally, I'm more for the terser formulation of `draft` - IMO that makes it
obvious enough.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I agree with putting `draft` in the current-version. I think it would be a
positive advantage if it turns up e.g. in `Conventions` (in the text of the
draft document), because that makes the status obvious. In fact maybe we could
be more explicit and say e.g. `:current-version: 1.10 draft (not
@JonathanGregory thanks for bringing us back on track!
> Might it make sense to do this?:
>
> :current-version: 1.10 draft
>
> And then remove draft pre-release?
I think that would make sense.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Discussion in review comments of
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/344__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!lLnLFd19gThcoMUaRLU_pBH4VxrLNZCKKoySzJQnQfoNQoRM5jsViIxya-aghDFqq-QhUmVjGFI$
reproduced here for the record. (May I politely and respectfully remind
@JonathanGregory I see the typo in the following places:
- Section 1.4, par 2
- Section 2.6.1 par 1
- Section 7.5 in the example
There are no other examples with the Convention attribute. Looking at the built
artifacts from that PR, there are no moree version number typos that I can see.
--
Dear @zlaus, @erget, @davidhassell et al.
Thanks for the
[PR](https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/344__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!nCorpr1w3xsiQ29-ZyQWgmXIFudxCW5wd2GqSaOFhrXPhujPZREoH3m0_nr7RyAKYpj6ZWWJJgg$
), Klaus. I agree that you've provided a neat
Thanks @zklaus, the PR looks pretty cool.
Also yes, happy new year everybody! :)
I've requested also the input of @davidhassell since he's more heavily involved
in the release process. @JonathanGregory, I propose that we proceed as follows:
- If we can agree on an approach for a longer-term
I added a draft PR in #344 that addresses (2). If we decide to tackle (1)
separately, the list of changes in that PR should give a good overview of the
places that need changing.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Dear all
Thanks for pointing it out, Leon @adigitoleo. I think @zklaus is right that we
could add a "replacement" i.e. a sort of macro in AsciiDoc for the current
version number, so that only one occurrence needed to be changed. I am not
familiar with the build process so I won't volunteer to
Hi all, so it looks like we actually have 2 things in this issue:
1. Fix typo (easy)
2. Potentially improve the document so it's more future-proof
(1) sounds necessary to me; (2) sounds like a good idea. Is anybody willing to
champion 1 or both of these? I would support it!
--
Reply to this
This should be possible using a "replacement" as described in [Section 26.9 of
the asciidoc
userguide](https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://asciidoc-py.github.io/userguide.html*X7__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!g9-eXsCt31CXN0toVTDJdMsAixwlWH5Sq5yhyLtaW7Ch9hVJLjPfXvzXF_Vg69HBpUAEbFj5dyY$
).
--
Reply to
The current published standard (v1.9) contains a typo in section 1.4 Overview:
> Files using this version of the CF Conventions must set the NUG defined
> attribute Conventions to contain the string value "CF-1.8" to identify
> datasets that conform to these conventions.
So, the version number
25 matches
Mail list logo
