Jacob Gilbert

We can rely on #209 and I'll focus on getting that merged. This will still need to be rebased / squashed though. I am not following the other discussion. Can...

Both of these use cases are very real situations that are relevant for python DSP, but I do not think these types of operations are appropriate for SigMF to address...

There is no objection to modification of metadata, and allowing modifying metadata in place is a good idea given that's part of the job of `sigmf`.

Also, if this becomes a widely requested or needed feature then I am not opposed to a larger discussion but the complexity and implied contracts that come about from allowing...

I think this is mergable with the one comment above addressed... that said i'll need to cherry-pick the commit unless we can get 209 reviewed first.

If you rebase this onto `sigmf-v1.x` it should take care of whatever is going on. If that rebase gets upside down, you might need to cherry-pick just the second commit...

While md5 checksums are faster than sha256, it is only moderately so (50-300% faster depending on the benchmark - the linux commands are about 80% faster on 2GB files on...

I can easily address the need I have for fast file integrity checks in our deepsig.sigmf-ext.md (we can't use this proposal because we use the sha256 checksum for when comprehensive...

Sounds like the consensus is no action required in the core spec? Anyone opposed to closing this issue (@Teque5 @bhilburn)?

Thanks for the issue. It seems our GUI application also has some other issues; when I run it: ```python jacob@jacob-ds1:/opt/sigmf/SigMF$ sigmf_gui /home/jacob/.local/lib/python3.8/site-packages/PySimpleGUI/PySimpleGUI.py:1443: UserWarning: You cannot Update element with key =...