Jonathan,
I wonder if we might have a webinar to demonstrate/talk about the
concepts we envision here. We've done a lot of typing, but I get with
30 min together online I bet we could end up with consensus.
-Rich
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Jonathan Gregory
<j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Dr. Richard P. Signell (508) 457-2229
USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
Received on Tue Sep 23 2014 - 15:16:36 BST
