I've merged it. As you say, it was past the time limit and since it was a
defect it's approved by default. Thanks.
--
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/238#is
Closed #238 via #240.
--
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/238#event-3191054853
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
c
@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:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/238#issuecom
This looks OK to me. You have swapped the contents of the examples to make them
fit the text - is that right?
--
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/238#issueco
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:
http://cfconventions.org/cf-conventions/cf-conventions.html#region-varia
@davidhassell I think this issue of mis-ordered examples still exists in the
beta 1.9 version of the docs. In interest of closing this out, can you (or
some other gracious volunteer) review #240 and potentially merge?
I'd like to submit some additions to Chapter 3 related to our new standard
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 subs
@mwengren a good way to deal with this is [rewriting
history](https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History). In fact,
it is very rare to find a good PR without rewritten history, imho.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directl
@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:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conven
@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 3.5
Hello @mwengren, I've had a quick look at the pull request and I'm afraid it
wasn't obvious to me why the paragraph order should be changed - it seems
natural to me to introduce `flag_*` attributes first and then go on to discuss
a special case, which is what the current conventions do. Could yo
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 resolves)
12 matches
Mail list logo
