Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify that zarr layout given in spec is an example #277

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dstansby
Copy link
Contributor

@dstansby dstansby commented Nov 22, 2024

This is a minor language clarification to switch from saying that this example is the "expected" layout to saying that it is a valid example.

I have made this change because I think "expected" could be interpreted as "this is what the spec says your layout should be", but I think the intent here was actually "here's a useful example of what a typical layout would be".

Note that I also added a new changelog section to the spec, because changes like this should get a changelog entry (see #275). This is just so I don't forget to include a changelog somewhere, and not an assumption on what the final location/format of that changelog will be, which can be discussed in #275.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 22, 2024

Automated Review URLs

Copy link
Member

@joshmoore joshmoore left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the clarification, @dstansby. Think we need to work on explaining what's changed where though.

Changelog {#changelog}
======================

Version 0.6
Copy link
Member

@joshmoore joshmoore Nov 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you mean 0.6 here? If so, I understand this to be a collection of more fine-grained changes between versions. If so, can we move it to the top-level? This could lead to confusion as to the state of "0.6" if in the 0.5 spec which could lead to confusion.

But maybe you meant this is part of 0.5? Sorry. A bit confused.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So in my head 0.5 is released and therefore fixed, because it is not versioned at a more granular level (e.g., 0.5.0, 0.5.1, 0.5.2). See my reasoning for why I think 0.x should be fixed on release in #278 (comment).

If so, can we move it to the top-level?

I don't see the harm (and I think it makes it easier to understand) in calling out which version a change happened in (and coversely, what list of changes happened in a given version)

This all ties back to #276 it seems - shouldn't there be an "active development" version of the spec, which changes are made against, which will become the version after the most recent versioned release?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm.... to be clear: did you edit in /latest/ or in /0.5/? @normanrz's PR may have moved your target.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Latest is currently symlinked to /0.5/: 72c4430, so I don't think there is a latest copy at the moment?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants