- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:23:26 -0700
- To: Khalil Ahmed <kal@networkedplanet.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-tests@w3.org
Gregg Kellogg gregg@greggkellogg.net > On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:51 PM, Khalil Ahmed <kal@networkedplanet.com> wrote: > > (resend, apologies if you get a duplicate) > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: > >> * Proposed changes should go on a separate branch related to a specific issue issue. Participants should have modify rights to the repo, so that branches off of the main repo are preferred to using a separate fork, but both are reasonable. > > I feel that it might be cleaner using a fork/pull-request procedure > rather than branch/merge as it would also give us a chance to comment > on / discuss a PR with a bit more in the way of assistance in the > GitHub interface. That said, I'm happy which ever works best from and > admin point of view - it just might be a good idea to pick one > approach as the preferred one. (one more time, to try to apease the W3C mail servers). In the CSV on the Web WG, we’ve used branches with pull requests to do the merge. This allows review of the branch and GitHub provides a nice UI for doing the PR. It’s pretty much the same as fork/PR, but keeps everything within a given repository. The advantage of having everything in a particular repository is being able to target that branch using something like htmlpreview.github.io. I definitely agree that, for must uses, branches should be merged via PR. Gregg > Cheers > > Kal > > -- > Kal Ahmed > Director, Networked Planet Limited > e: kal.ahmed@networkedplanet.com > w: www.networkedplanet.com
Received on Monday, 7 September 2015 20:23:57 UTC