Blog: announce 2.2.0 and 2.3.0 - #44
Open
lambda2 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Covers both releases: 2.2.0 never got a post, and leaving a gap would be worse than one post spanning two versions. The through-line is that 2.1.0 recorded where values came from, and these two make that recording mean something — deciding which source wins a disagreement, and letting readers watch the dataset improve. Leads on the change most likely to affect what people read: taxon status and authorship were still on last-write-wins, so a status from Kew could be replaced by one from an automated aggregator with nothing recorded. Keeps the honest register of the previous posts: says the traits are largely empty rather than dressing it up, and asks which fields people actually need, since lookup frequency is a poor proxy.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Covers both releases. 2.2.0 never got a post, and a gap in the series would read worse than one post spanning two versions.
The through-line
2.1.0 introduced provenance — recording which source each value came from. These two make that recording mean something: deciding which source wins when they disagree, and letting readers watch the dataset improve day by day.
What it leads on
Taxonomy, because it is the change most likely to affect what people actually read. Whether a name is accepted or doubtful, who authored it, when it was published — all still on last-write-wins, so a status from Kew could be replaced by one from an aggregator whose taxonomy is assembled automatically, with nothing recorded. Explained without naming and shaming any particular source.
Also covered
source_record_idon facts, with a concrete JSON example"mar|apr|may"rather than"28")unknownimage key, cultivation fields expected only of cultivated speciesRegister
Same as the previous posts — says the traits are largely empty rather than dressing it up, and closes by asking which fields people actually need, since lookup frequency is a poor proxy for that.
Build green, page generated at
blog/2-3-0-released.