Remove mention to examples folder #514
Conversation
|
@m-mohr can we merge this simple fix? |
|
I think we had a PSC decision on this and I hadn't had the time yet to check what the actual outcome was. Edit: Just checked it, see below. |
README.md
Outdated
| @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ This repository contains a set of files formally describing the openEO Processes | |||
| ## Process | |||
|
|
|||
| * All new processes must be added to the [`proposals`](proposals/) folder. | |||
| * Processes will only be moved from proposals to the stable process specifications once there are at least two implementations and an example process in the [`examples`](examples/) folder showing it in a use case. This doesn't require a PSC vote individually as it's not a breaking change, just an addition. | |||
| * Processes will only be moved from proposals to the stable process specifications once there are at least two implementations. This doesn't require a PSC vote individually as it's not a breaking change, just an addition. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We never explicitly discussed to remove this requirement (which we could discuss due to the fact that openeo-community-examples is pretty unmaintained), but we did discuss moving the examples:
Open-EO/PSC#14
So the correct way currently is to change as follows unless another PSC discussion takes place:
| * Processes will only be moved from proposals to the stable process specifications once there are at least two implementations. This doesn't require a PSC vote individually as it's not a breaking change, just an addition. | |
| * Processes will only be moved from proposals to the stable process specifications once there are at least two implementations and an example process in the [`openEO community examples`](https://github.com/Open-EO/openeo-community-examples/) showing it in a use case. This doesn't require a PSC vote individually as it's not a breaking change, just an addition. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fine, thanks for the feedback
|
not sure if intended, but I noticed this PR was applied to master instead of going through draft |
Fixes #513