New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes for compatibility with wider range of inverters #30
Changes for compatibility with wider range of inverters #30
Conversation
Hi Stuart, this looks is great. Sorry I don't have an SMA to test ans sorry it took so long to merge. I have been away last couple of weeks and wanted to test properly before merging. It seems nothing is broken 👍 Now that this feature has been merged it would be great to give it some publicly. Have you blogged about it somwhere? Maybe we could get a guest blog post up on the OpenEnergyMonitor blog from you, or link to your blog? https://blog.openenergymonitor.org |
I'm sure I can do that, I'm going to be busy over the next week but get in
touch after then and I'll see what I can do!
…On 11 April 2017 at 17:13, Glyn Hudson ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Stuart, this looks is great. Sorry I don't have an SMA to test ans
sorry it took so long to merge. I have been away last couple of weeks and
wanted to test properly before merging. It seems nothing is broken 👍
Now that this feature has been merged it would be great to give it some
publicly. Have you blogged about it somwhere? Maybe we could get a guest
blog post up on the OpenEnergyMonitor blog from you, or link to your blog?
https://blog.openenergymonitor.org
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#30 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABJW9SHnZZ-kfEN0HGhkVOTu9Z1nqh_Tks5ru6aqgaJpZM4Mrcii>
.
|
Lots of changes to improve the code and avoid issues with various models of SMA inverters.