[CF-metadata] Proposals for Versioning CF Conventions and Standard Names on Github

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:16:12 +0100

Dear all

I think I must not have missed a point somewhere. Version control is not the
same as branches, is it. We already have version control and maybe we could
add a third digit to it if we corrected defects between versions. I do not
see a need for branches in developing the convention. In software development
you need branches when different changes overlap and are being developed
concurrently. That has hardly ever been the case for the CF convention, as far
as I remember, though I think there might at the moment be a couple of trac
tickets that modify the same part of the document. This has arisen because
there are so many agreed trac tickets waiting to be actioned, and is a reason
why we need the next version (CF-1.7) to be finalised. Moreover in the end
you have to reconcile concurrent developments, and I would say that in the
case of the CF convention it would hardly make sense to develop two changes
separately and then reconcile them subsequently - it would be much more
sensible to reconcile and probably combine them as they were being discussed,
I would argue. Thus I think we are fine with the existing system that agrees
changes independently, and then combines them all to make a new version.

I don't know about what software systems are best suited for it. I think that
trac is a good system for it, because it records the whole discussion and it's
easy for anyone to read and contribute to it without understanding anything
except simple text markup (and even that is inessential). But if other systems
do the same things and have other advantages, that would be fine. We are using
trac really much like email, but it's easier to keep the threads separate.
(We did use the email list for conventions changes before we used trac.)

I'm still unclear about my previous question. Is it envisaged that many people
might prepare a new version of the document with a trac ticket implemented in
it, and then request to upload it? Who would do the proof-reading and give
the final OK that the change was as agreed in the ticket? It would be helpful
to know what folk at PCDMI think who manage the current system. Is this way of
doing it better than having a single editor, as we do now? The convention is
not like a large software package. It is something we all write together, in
effect, rather than something we all contribute to independently. I suppose
there must be parallels with other standards documents.

The CF convention and the standard name table are versioned and managed
independently. The convention and conformance documents are synchronised.
The standard name table is synchronised with the area types table and the
standard name guidelines.

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Tue Sep 23 2014 - 10:16:12 BST