update URLs

Author: birkenfeld

minutes/2022-05-23_vidconf.rst

@@ -163,9 +163,9 @@ Agenda
 
 1) discuss the JSON description of the HZB proposal of the orange cryo
 2) Issue 72 (features)
-   https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/protocol/issues/072%20features.rst
+   https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/issues/072%20features.rst
 3) Issue 73 (HasLimits and HasOffset)
-   https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/protocol/issues/073%20HasLimits%20and%20HasOffset.rst
+   https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/issues/073%20HasLimits%20and%20HasOffset.rst
 4) Ennos proposal on how to encode additional definitions in the descriptive data
 5) other still open issues
 6) next meeting

minutes/2022-08-10_vidconf.rst

@@ -26,9 +26,9 @@ Agenda:
 
 3) orange type cryostat example
 
-4) finalizing issue 65 (coupled modules, see section "Decision" of https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/protocol/issues/065%20handling%20of%20coupled%20modules.rst)
+4) finalizing issue 65 (coupled modules, see section "Decision" of https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/issues/065%20handling%20of%20coupled%20modules.rst)
 
-5) further discussion on issue 73 (offset and limits, https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/protocol/issues/073%20HasLimits%20and%20HasOffset.rst)
+5) further discussion on issue 73 (offset and limits, https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/issues/073%20HasLimits%20and%20HasOffset.rst)
 
 6) next meeting
 

minutes/2022-09-26_vidconf.rst

@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ Agenda
 
 4) next proposal for issue 73. Instead of the proposed reset_limits command,
    I propose a read only target_hardlimits parameter. Naming debateable.
-   https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/protocol/issues/073%20HasLimits%20and%20HasOffset.rst
+   https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/issues/073%20HasLimits%20and%20HasOffset.rst
 
 5) follow up of last meeting about templates. citation from the minutes:
    "Every facility should compile a few prosaic templates for discussion in next meeting."

minutes/2022-10-18_vidconf.rst

@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ Agenda:
 
 4) next proposal for issue 73. Instead of the proposed reset_limits command,
    I propose a read only target_hardlimits parameter. Naming debateable.
-   https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/protocol/issues/073%20HasLimits%20and%20HasOffset.rst
+   https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/issues/073%20HasLimits%20and%20HasOffset.rst
 
 5) how to represent Measurables in SECoP
    - discuss further the proposed ideas from last meeting

minutes/2022-11-14_vidconf.rst

@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ Agenda
 
 3) Issue 73 (HasOffset, target_limits), see the next proposal:
 
-https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/protocol/issues/073%20HasLimits%20and%20HasOffset.rst
+https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/issues/073%20HasLimits%20and%20HasOffset.rst
 
 If we agree on this, the idea to indicate partial changes of the descriptive data may be obsolete.
 I propose to postpone the discussion until the need arises.

minutes/2022-12-12_vidconf.rst

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Agenda
 3) items resulting from last best practice discussions
 
   - proposal for check/checked message (see issue 75)
-    https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/protocol/issues/075%20New%20messages%20check%20and%20checked.rst
+    https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/issues/075%20New%20messages%20check%20and%20checked.rst
 
   Who writes issues about:
   - 'use_' prefix

minutes/2023-01-16_vidconf.rst

@@ -27,12 +27,12 @@ Agenda:
 2) refinement of specs (please no lengthy discussions)
    - *IDN? message (change inserted to spec draft)
    - offset datatype: I can not find a concise and helpful wording for this. See last section of issue 73:
-     https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/protocol/issues/073%20HasLimits%20and%20HasOffset.rst
+     https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/issues/073%20HasLimits%20and%20HasOffset.rst
 
 3) issues (discussion only if new proposals are available):
 
  - issue 75: check/checked message
-   https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/protocol/issues/075%20New%20messages%20check%20and%20checked.rst
+   https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/master/issues/075%20New%20messages%20check%20and%20checked.rst
  - 'use_' prefix
  - 'quantity' module property, 'max_' prefix (I have not yet found the time to work on it)
  - Measurable

minutes/2023-02-14_vidconf.rst

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Agenda:
    - what should we present
    - any issues to discuss with other workpackages?
 
-3) SECoP issues https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/tree/master/protocol/issues
+3) SECoP issues https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/tree/master/issues
 
    - issue 76: Interface for Measurable hardware (are we ready for an agreement?)
    - issue 77: predefined parameter name prefixes (change to postfix - further discussion needed?)

minutes/2023-05-02_vidconf.rst

@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Agenda
 2) split specification in a core part (protocol + other basic things) and a 'best practice' part
    and discuss a possible adaption the approval process for the specification
 
-3) SECoP Issues: https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/tree/master/protocol/issues
+3) SECoP Issues: https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/tree/master/issues
    - issue 79: hints for readonly access. decide about the proposal in the draft ("visibility" in modules and accessible)
    - issue 76: Interface for Measurable hardware (are we ready for an agreement?)
    - issue 77: prefixes / postfixes: a precise specification test has to be written

minutes/2024-11-05_vidconf.rst

@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ After a minor side discussion about naming in Bluesky, Georg suggests 'Acquisiti
 Klaus ponders around 'collector'/'capture'.
 
 proposed implementation specs:
-https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/measurable/protocol/issues/076%20Interface%20for%20Measurable%20hardware.rst
+https://github.com/SampleEnvironment/SECoP/blob/measurable/issues/076%20Interface%20for%20Measurable%20hardware.rst
 
 The implementation seems to be accepted.