search

airr-community / airr-standards

AIRR Community Data Standards
https://docs.airr-community.org
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
35 stars 23 forks source link

RepertoireGroup development for v2.0 #748

Closed bcorrie closed 4 months ago

bcorrie commented 4 months ago

In the descriptions of each field, it uses the wording "repertoire collection" not "repertoire group". Should this object be called RepertoireCollection

closes #578

scharch commented 4 months ago

Yeah nevermind it SAYS that, sorry...

bcorrie commented 4 months ago

@schristley this PR was intended to capture all of the changes we wanted to make for RepertoireGroup for the v2.0 release. Although there was only one minor issue listed so far, my intention with this was to contain all of the discussions around what we wanted to do with RepertoireGroup. We just haven't discussed anything yet other than the minor issue I raised above.

So I don't think it should have been merged... 8-)

bcorrie commented 4 months ago

Also, if you took my comment here at face value, that was a mistake 8-)

https://github.com/airr-community/airr-standards/issues/578#issuecomment-1936792877

I should have used a tongue-in-cheek emoticon as I definitely didn't mean to say that that issue was really done!!! I think we have more to discuss.

Sorry for the confusion... 8-)

schristley commented 4 months ago

oops, sorry! The branch is still there so if any changes are committed, it will re-open the PR

scharch commented 4 months ago

@schristley it didn't reopen the PR...

bcorrie commented 4 months ago

Hmm, I tried as well and it didn't work...

schristley commented 4 months ago

@scharch @bcorrie Sorry, my mistake, a merged PR cannot be re-opened, that's for provenance reasons. I was confusing it with a closed PR (but which was not merged). If you want, I can revert those changes, and move into a new PR? and/or just create a new PR for more stuff?

I do have some comments to make about #578 but I'm still catching up after my trip...

bcorrie commented 4 months ago

I would suggest just creating a new PR...

schristley commented 4 months ago

and leave it as draft to deter any itchy merge fingers...