- From: Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:06:58 +0000
- To: public-secondscreen@w3.org
@mfoltzgoogle Would your first concern be addressed if the first comment of each issue that is pulled in the spec would be edited in GH issues to be worded as such that it is fine for inclusion into the spec while further elaboration would be placed in the follow up comments? We've used this integration in some other specs and I personally felt keeping GH issues in sync with the spec makes the editor's life easier since it minimizes information duplication. The only tradeoff I noticed is that since this information is pulled from GH into the spec dynamically the source itself does not include the issue text, source diff for issue text changes is not possible unless we generate an HTML from the source on each commit (we do that with ReSpec for some specs). I think the second concern is already addressed i.e. closed issues are not rendered, but it would probably still make sense to drop the issue placeholder `<div>`s from the specification when the corresponding issue is closed similarly to as we'd do even without this integration. If the above does not address the concerns and you feel this integration is not actually helping you as an editor feel free to revert. It is always the editor who has the final say on the toolchain issues :-) -- GitHub Notif of comment by anssiko See https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/pull/158#issuecomment-134891196
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 08:07:05 UTC