issue_comments: 510558970
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/issues/3091#issuecomment-510558970 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3091 | 510558970 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMDU1ODk3MA== | 35968931 | 2019-07-11T16:30:12Z | 2019-07-11T16:30:12Z | MEMBER | Okay fair points. From an implementation point of view it makes sense to raise one warning just saying that function will be deprecated/have deprecated behaviour, then immediately raise further warnings with details as to what to do. (Otherwise you'll have to start secretly passing partial warning message strings into auto_combine, which is possible but seems clunky.) If I do that so it specifically refers to open_mfdataset in the first warning, then gives a (better) generic explanation in the second, do you think that would be sufficient? |
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
466444738 |