⚠️ Warning: This is a draft ⚠️
This means it might contain formatting issues, incorrect code, conceptual problems, or other severe issues.
If you want to help to improve and eventually enable this page, please fork RosettaGit's repository and open a merge request on GitHub.
So do we like this one better than [[Data Munging]]? We should make a decision and remove the one we don't want. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Hello? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 18:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC) : I like the original task better. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 19:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
: If it was up to me, then I would keep them both :-) : But if forced to chose, then obviously the original task, for all the reasons I gave in its talk page. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 02:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC) : The specific thing both tasks appear to accomplish is parsing the original source file. Is there something special about how they differ beyond that point? If it's a particular type of analysis in question, then I could see that analysis being the specific goal of a task that reads in language-native record types. I could also see parsing the data format being the goal in its own task. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 06:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) ::The interpretations on this task are a bit simpler and better defined. This means that there is less code that doesn't have to do with actual parsing of data. I was never really sure what was supposed to happen in the other task because it seemed to be mostly defined in a forum post. The only real instructions I could figure out that were actually in the task were to go look at the forum post to see what to do or try to imitate some of the original examples that came with the task. I think that's what really sparked the debate that led to this split. My vote goes for this version because examples will be less cluttered and the task is well-defined on RC rather than on some other site. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
== Task clarification ==
Most solutions report that 5017 records have good readings for all instruments. However some (Java, first Python solution) report 5013. AFAICS the discrepancy arises in whether the records for duplicate dates are included or excluded in the record count. Perhaps the task description should be clarified to explicitly state which result is desired?--[[User:Tikkanz|Tikkanz]] 22:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
== Readings.txt / zip is missing == I get a 404 when trying to download the readings.txt file
I also can not download the file (8th November 2017)