Johannes Soltwedel
Johannes Soltwedel
Maybe it makes sense to continue this discussion in a separate issue? Not to step on anyone's toes but I think the PR got a bit sidetracked from the original...
Thanks for linking the issue! I'll write up a summary of this thread over there.
> Presumably (because data written after this change is not compatible with the spec before this change) this Wouldn't say so. The change just doesn't demand the `version` to be...
As for versioning, I think the idea now would be to create a new branch (`0.6dev`) or something of the sort and then collect all changes for a future `0.6`...
Back from vacation - maybe we can all agree that while it should or should not go into a 0.5.3 version, it should definitely be part of an upcoming 0.6?...
The 0.5 specification says: > The "labels" group is nested within an image group, at the same level of the Zarr hierarchy as the resolution levels for the original image....
@lubianat hm...I think this can still go in. It's just to make the RFC docs consistent with the actual spec text.
I'd be mildly in flavor for snake_case, but that's just my Python hat speaking. Could be added to the backlog of `0.6dev3`?
Duplicate of #351?
Oh right. Sorry - heavy case of Monday 😅