[FIX] Clarify channels.tsv is RECOMMENDED consistently across ephys #347
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
sappelhoff
requested review from
robertoostenveld,
CPernet,
dorahermes,
jasmainak and
teonbrooks
robertoostenveld
previously approved these changes
Oct 17, 2019
jasmainak
reviewed
Nov 10, 2019
jasmainak
reviewed
Nov 10, 2019
src/04-modality-specific-files/04-intracranial-electroencephalography.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
jasmainak
previously approved these changes
Nov 10, 2019
Co-Authored-By: Mainak Jas <jasmainak@users.noreply.github.com>
sappelhoff
dismissed stale reviews from jasmainak and robertoostenveld
via
443232a
franklin-feingold
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2019
sappelhoff
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
closes #344
following the discussion in #344 this is a proposal to:
I think most of us agree that a more strict "MUST" would be more adequate ... but it would break several existing datasets.
This PR can be merged as a backward-compatible, initial improvement, until we finished discussion on whether we should elevate the SHOULD to a MUST.