Skip to content

Conversation

@wadawson
Copy link
Contributor

@wadawson wadawson commented May 8, 2015

There were problems with the second to last step schema creation.
I also added some text on setting up the environment.

wadawson added 2 commits May 8, 2015 12:47
There were problems with the second to last step schema creation.
I also added some text on setting up the environment.
The file is only 70kb and it is central to the notebook analysis so it seems
like it really should just be part of the repo.
@cwwalter
Copy link
Member

Thanks Will. So a few notes about your changes which will lead to a discussion of the best way to handle this.

  • Adding Phosim File:

The PhoSim file is actually already in the repository. It is hosted on the gh-pages branch which hosts the web site: http://darkenergysciencecollaboration.github.io/DataManagementWorkbook/ . You can see that by looking at the link to the file from the web site. But maybe you never really looked a the web site and just started looking at the notebooks in a bare way.

  • Adding setup info to the notebook.

This a good idea but I was thinking about it and I think probably what we want to do is put that general info on the web site, and then, in the notebook, make a link to the web page for instructions. The reason is that there are several notebooks so if we centralize it then we don't have to repeat the same info over and over and instructions will always be in sync.

So assuming that we want to keep things this way could you (for now) make changes to reflect that (i.e remove the extra PhoSim file you added) and move the description to the web page?

So, then we should think about more generally if using the github page with the repository is the best way to do this. We could for example use a DESC confluence page instead to point to the notebooks. But, this would have the consequence that non-DESC people from LSST in DM etc couldn't see it. So, it is not obvious.

I also have a few minor comments about wording (since I want to keep these very pedagogical) but let's handle that after the bigger changes.

@cwwalter
Copy link
Member

BTW, there is a conflict, which means this can't be merged because your previous pull request which I merged a few days ago isn't also applied to this branch. Could you merge that onto this branch too?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants