Kevin Anderson

Right now our docs build uses python 3.7 (see https://github.com/pvlib/pvlib-python/blob/main/readthedocs.yml), which I'm guessing means it's also using an older pandas that doesn't support `inclusive`. I'm in favor of upgrading our...

> @kandersolar Would you also be in favor of this? Hard to say without hearing some specifics, but in general we enthusiastically welcome contributions! Please open an issue describing any...

Closing this PR as it is now redundant after #2029. Thanks @PhilBrk8, and hopefully we see more PRs from you in the future :)

> I have the feeling that the reference still is an issue. For me, yes. I don't think we have a reference that clearly describes the specific model implemented here....

@captkirk96 can you say a bit what problem this PR is solving? It seems to duplicate existing code and reinstate old code that we removed. It is not clear why...

Closing as the purpose of the PR is not clear. Please feel free to clarify @captkirk96

It's not obvious to me that pvlib.iotools should be in the business of choosing which of several DNI options is the "blessed" channel that gets mapped to be mapped to...

> In this case we could maybe do dni_chp1 and the likes? I could support this. The alternative I see is to not map at all in cases like this...

The above discussion covers how to go about building a correct distribution without using deprecated `setuptools` functionality. Thanks all for that! My question here is more philosophical than practical. It...

> How does one avoid this? There's no way that I'm aware of. If you want a laugh, see what it does to poor [read_tmy3](https://pvlib-python.readthedocs.io/en/stable/reference/generated/pvlib.iotools.read_tmy3.html). Anyway don't worry about it...