W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-indie-ui@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Indie UI Repository structure

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:14:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4FE31020.4020606@nokia.com>
To: ext Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
CC: public-indie-ui@w3.org, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
On 6/21/12 1:31 AM, ext Sangwhan Moon wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:13:13 +0900, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> 
> wrote:
>> Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote:
>>> It has been proposed that the version identifier be dropped as a
>>> containing folder. I don't yet have the knowledge of Mercurial to
>>> understand if we can maintain a clear relationship between branches and
>>> W3C versions.
>> I am much more familiar with Git than with Mercurial, though they are 
>> similar
>> in broad outline.
>> A further issue to consider is whether scripts are executed when a 
>> commit is
>> made that update the editor's draft on the W3C site, and, more 
>> generally, how
>> the repository is tied to the W3C's publication process. This may affect
>> branch structure, e.g., if commits made to the master branch result in
>> automatic publication within working group Web space, which is how 
>> the W3C's
>> CVS repository used to work when I was an editor.
> If you create a named branch that corresponds to the W3C version, it 
> should be accessible
> using the following URL syntax:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/[repository_name]/raw-file/[branch_name]/[filename]
> As a example, Touch Events Version 1 can be accessed with the 
> following URL:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html
> (I can help with the branch setup after a draft is in place if needed)

Great and thanks for the info above Sangwhan.

So Michael - I agree with Sangwhan that we should use branches (rather 
than directories with version names/ids). If someone has never used 
branches, they can be a bit tricky both for the person editing a doc 
(the `push'er`) and the person that just wants their browser to display 
a doc but they also provide some advantages.

If we use branches, the directory structure you proposed in [1] could 
then be simplified like this ...




The users could then view the latest version (aka "tip") of the specs via:


Assuming "v1" branches are created for each of these two html files, the 
user would use the following to view the v1 branches:


You could of course include the `spec` directory you proposed too, but 
it doesn't seem necessary (although I don't feel strongly either way).

(BTW, if there is interest, I have a short Mercurial/Hg "cheatsheet" I 
can send to you or can upload to some wiki if there is broader interest.)


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2012Jun/0021.html
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:16:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:14 UTC