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

File naming in README #10

Open
damianooldoni opened this issue Sep 30, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

File naming in README #10

damianooldoni opened this issue Sep 30, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation

Comments

@damianooldoni
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think that describing the file naming of the output maps in a README pdf stored in the output directory is the best idea. I think this information suits perfectly the repo's README.
@peterdesmet, @amyjsdavis, what do you think about it?

@damianooldoni damianooldoni added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Sep 30, 2020
@peterdesmet
Copy link
Member

peterdesmet commented Sep 30, 2020

You are talking about this pdf I assume? I agree:

  • Should definitely be a README.md file, not pdf
  • Its location could be in data/processed but since that directory contains all generated files, it's maybe better to avoid. Since it is rather small, I agree that it would be good to have in the main README at root

@amyjsdavis
Copy link
Contributor

amyjsdavis commented Sep 30, 2020

I see what you mean. My motivation for having this stand alone readme.pdf file in the output directory is for risk assessors who are downloading the pdfs of the risk maps from the repo and need to understand the file naming structure. I see now that it does not make sense to have risk assessment documents here with the modeling work flow. I will be happy to incorporate it into the original README at root.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants