Closed ryanfranz closed 4 years ago
@BernardLeclerc @cnreediii @DavidFLOR Can you guys review these changes before they go before the whole SWG? Thanks!
Looks OK to me. I made a number of minor edits but no significant changes.
Ryan and Bernard, I'm ready to start an electronic vote in this CR, but I think I should wait until both of you weigh in on the ongoing conversation.
Ryan: Bernard has a Change Request linked to his most recent review; and the branch has conflicts that must be resolved. May I ask you to help me with this?
@DavidFLOR : Bernard has merged the changes, and I renumbered the requirement that I created, so they should merge ok now. @BernardLeclerc : Have I addressed your changes that you wanted me to make? I think my confusion is that I never noticed that the alternate elevation was just an extension to the primary elevation dataset. I have always viewed these as complete separate items that can be present at the same time, but not necessarily corresponding or even being created the same way.
The real discussion is whether or not a new component selector (CS2 = 004) is allocated to the 3-subfile TIFF image.
For CDB SWG Working Discussion Meeting 11/7/2019
I believe that I have addressed Bernard's latest review. I agree about the component selector discussion, it is wrapped around whether we can make changes that might break compatibility with existing systems that might be out there.
@BernardLeclerc , @PresagisHermann - Ready to review moving back to a single component selector, all changes in clause 10
Reopening the pull request
Ryan - Thanks for testing! If Bernard and Hermann happy with the latest change (consensus), then we can have the SWG vote and merge 573 changes into master.
Electronic vote in the CDB SWG initiated to approve this pull request; ten day vote closes 11/22/2019.
Changes to resolve CR-573: