issue_comments: 272075886
This data as json
| html_url | issue_url | id | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions | performed_via_github_app | issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/1198#issuecomment-272075886 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1198 | 272075886 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI3MjA3NTg4Ng== | 4295853 | 2017-01-12T04:54:27Z | 2017-01-12T04:54:27Z | CONTRIBUTOR | @shoyer, I just realized this might conflict with #1087. Do you foresee this causing problems and what order do you plan to merge this PR and #1087 (which obviously predates this one...)? We are running into the snag with #463 in our analysis and my personal preference would be to get some type of solution into place sooner than later. Thanks for considering this request. Also, I'm not sure exactly the best way to test performance either. Could we potentially use something like the "toy" test cases for this purpose? Ideally we would have a test case with O(100) files to gain a clearer picture of the performance cost of this PR. Please let me know what you want me to do with this PR-- should I clean it up in anticipation of a merge or just wait for now to see if there are extra things that need fixed via additional testing? Note I have the full scipy, h5netcdf and pynio implementations that can also be reviewed because they weren't available when you did your review yesterday. |
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
199900056 |