Open lpilz opened 6 months ago
@lpilz - these are all great points and questions - I think it would be helpful to setup a meeting to discuss a roadmap for a "1.0" version of xwrf... do you think this would be of interest?
Yes, I think that would be great. Not sure who would be interested in joining but I'd be happy to have this discussed for sure :)
Hey @xarray-contrib/xwrf-devs is anybody interested in joining this discussion? :)
I'd definitely be interested, but unfortunately I don't have great availability until the second half of June (so if you need to move ahead on this sooner, don't worry about me).
Could folks interested please fill out this availability poll? https://www.when2meet.com/?25256760-mOpoG
@mgrover1 Are you able to join for any of the dates?
I propose to meet Thu, 8am MST since this works well for both, Jon and me.
That sounds like a great plan! Thanks @lpilz
Just wanted to check: did anybody have a link for our remote meeting here this morning? If not, I can readily make one for Google Meet or Zoom.
That would be great if you could create one @jthielen
Sounds good! Here it is below:
To join the video meeting, click this link: https://meet.google.com/cbc-gmsk-huo Otherwise, to join by phone, dial +1 775-375-0476 and enter this PIN: 106 331 339#
Originally posted by @mgrover1 in https://github.com/xarray-contrib/xwrf/issues/168#issuecomment-2101325423
Max suggested that we make the projection/grid generation optional, too. I think this issue would be a good opportunity to discuss whether we want to refactor/add some other things, too. I have a couple of ideas:
ppm
units (maybe separate issue?).postprocess
steps optional, tooDo we want additional features in
xwrf
like plotting routines, adding sophisticated interpolation support (one feature I think would be cool is interpolation between different CRS using xugrid), some interactive data exploration? Or do we want xwrf to stay as lightweight as possible?