Some old documents (cdms and friends) for newcomers :)

[jypeter]

This is kind of between a feature and a documentation request

You can visit my old documentation link if you want to download some of the old CDAT documents. I have lots of other old CDAT documents and tutorials, but I have only uploaded the most important ones

This will give you an idea of the features we use and like. I understand that the xarray based API will make backward compatibility impossible, but the documentation shows the useful (for a climate scientist) features that were available and that will hopefully be replicated in some way

• cdms_quick_start.pdf: yes, that file is 20 years old, that's how visionary Bob's work was. Too bad it was never more widely adopted
• cdms5.pdf: the last pdf version of the cdms (and cdtime) documentation (I have not uploaded earlier versions). It's long but very good. I think that's probably what Denis used for readthedoc CDMS documentation. But there were several conversion errors and it may still be better to use the original pdf
• cdat_utilities.pdf: the original documentation of the spatial and time averaging functions we still use regularly (i.e. the original content of cdutil and genutil)
• Unlocking_CDATs_Best_Kept_Secrets.pdf: one of Charles' tutorials. I'd say read pages: 6-10, 13-14, 17 (filters)
• 05_quick_guide_to_read_manip_plot_write.pdf, 08_averaging_grids_and_interpolation.pdf, 09_statistical_tools_genutil.pdf, 10_climate_specific_tools.pdf, 13_cdtime_time_manipulation.pdf: more on cdms, cdtime, cdutil, genutil

[chengzhuzhang]

Hey @jypeter Thank you for providing these very useful documentation! This issue, as well as the #159 Moving from CDAT to xcdat, will perhaps suit better in discussion rather than an issue that we can resolve. Do you mind if I convert both to discussion? I think they will be very useful for entraining discussions from newcomers as well.

[tomvothecoder]

@jypeter Thanks for this info, we appreciate your input!

Also good idea about using the discussion forum @chengzhuzhang. Just like #159, I will be moving this discussion over to #168.

[jypeter]

Thanks @tomvothecoder and @chengzhuzhang for moving this and #169 to the most appropriate place! I confess I did not know about the discussion feature of github (and have never used it before)