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

Deprecate preliminary back extension support #124

Closed
Peter9192 opened this issue Oct 18, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #166
Closed

Deprecate preliminary back extension support #124

Peter9192 opened this issue Oct 18, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #166
Labels
pending deprecation Issues tracking deprecations

Comments

@Peter9192
Copy link
Collaborator

In #123 support is added for the "normal" back extension. That means that the preliminary back extension will be less relevant. Since the preliminary back extension adds substantial complexity to this tool, we might want to think about deprecating it. Users relying on the back extension for the reproducibility of previous results could still use an older version of era5cli.

@malininae
Copy link
Contributor

@Peter9192 Although I agree it's less relevant now, but there are still nine years that one wants to download through the back extension (1950-1958). I would suggest keeping it for a bit.

@BSchilperoort
Copy link
Member

@malininae with the changes in #146, I assume the back extension can now be fully deprecated?

@malininae
Copy link
Contributor

@BSchilperoort I suspect so. The only case speaking against it, if there is someone who wants to compare preliminary and final version. I don't know how much support the package has, but maybe say, it will be deprecated in the next release?

@BSchilperoort
Copy link
Member

That could work. I'll make the usage of --prelimbe raise a deprecation warning, and remove it in a later release.

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants