Andrius Merkys

Electrons and neutrons could be marked as `e` and `n` respectively, if only we mandate that such symbols appear in the beginning of the formula. This way no capital letter...

Thanks for a link, @rartino. So having electron (I suggest `e`) as possible chemical symbol makes sense. I just want to make sure `e` would not break anything in formulas:...

I agree with @rartino, there is no need to over-complicate right now.

> These are some examples of chemical formula's with electrons: > [Ca24Al28O68]4+4e- https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ol701885p > [Na(NH3)6]+e− (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electride) > [La8Sr2(SiO4)6]4+:4e– https://www.nature.com/articles/s41535-017-0053-4 > > Leaving the electrons out will give you a different...

I would like to revive the thread. There have been some nice future-proof suggestions, but how about introducing just the constraints expressed in my original post, for the time being?...

> I support this idea, and think we should even consider applying this retroactively. As far as I can see, the only "feature" added since 1.0 is the `issue_tracker` field....

I think that backporting approach would need more effort that the two-branch approach. So I vote for two-branch approach.

@rartino's suggestion makes sense, but I'd like to avoid cherry-picking as much as possible due to the tediousness of it. Why not replace > 3. Future changes that make sense...

Yes, I agree with @giovannipizzi and @rartino that we can solve this after v1.0.

I am revisiting this issue after looking at #364, where licensing of archival data is discussed. I would like to build on top of my initial proposal, accommodating [subsequent @rartino's...