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

implement tickets 298 and 319 #331

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 23, 2021

Conversation

JonathanGregory
Copy link
Contributor

See issue #298 and #319 for discussion of these changes.

Release checklist

  • [Y] Authors updated in cf-conventions.adoc?
  • [Y] Next version in cf-conventions.adoc up to date? Versioning inspired by SemVer.
  • [Y] history.adoc up to date?
  • [Y] Conformance document up-to-date?

For maintainers

After the merge remember to delete the source branch.
Tags are set at the conclusion of the annual meeting; until then master always is a draft for the next version.

ch04.adoc Outdated
Comment on lines 215 to 216
We recommend that the unit **`year`** be used with caution. The Udunits package defines a **`year`** to be exactly 365.242198781 days (the interval between 2 successive passages of the sun through vernal equinox). __It is not a calendar year.__ Udunits includes the following definitions for years: a **`common_year`** is 365 days, a **`leap_year`** is 366 days, a **`Julian_year`** is 365.25 days, and a **`Gregorian_year`** is 365.2425 days.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Perhaps this is a good opportunity to update the second udunits.dat link in the following line 217 as well.

I also wonder if we should be explicit in whether CF follows udunits in the definitions of year and month. The way these two paragraphs are written, the reader might come away with the impression that we are only warning of potential misinterpretation by some other software, whereas my understanding so far is that we adopt the udunits definition, albeit begrudgingly. But perhaps my understand is wrong or you would prefer to address this in a separate issue?

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.

3 participants