W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > May 2016

Re: TTML2 Editing Process

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 11:24:41 +0000
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D3561F37.3AF5C%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Hi Glenn,

Thank you for this – it'll be great to start using pull requests like this, and I appreciate your flexibility in changing the editorial process, and thoroughness in documenting it. A couple of questions and a request:

1. The process excludes the possibility of merging into a PR branch from another branch: I think there could be a legitimate reason for doing this occasionally, so I'm not sure why we would prohibit it?

2. Since the process requires an issue number, do you plan to create issues for each editorial note that needs further work? Some of those editorial tasks could usefully be completed by group members via PRs. Alternatively a different naming format for non-issue editorial fixes could work.

The other thing to note is that since this process does not require consensus prior to merging, we will need a separate review phase for every snapshot that we wish to consider for publication as a WD. I'm guessing you've chosen that route so that you can resolve any temporal blockages caused by waiting for consensus, as discussed in last week's meeting.

I suppose I'd just request that where possible you do wait for a consensus prior to merging, since that will reduce our incremental review time prior to publishing new WDs. If we can keep track of those PRs that you merge without consensus, that would be helpful.

Kind regards,


From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>>
Date: Sunday, 8 May 2016 22:56
To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org<mailto:public-tt@w3.org>>
Subject: TTML2 Editing Process
Resent-From: <public-tt@w3.org<mailto:public-tt@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Sunday, 8 May 2016 22:57

I have documented the (new) TTML2 Editing Process [1]. This process adopts the standard github pull-request mechanism; therefore, it provides the advantages of fine-grained review of issue-based merges.

The only variation to what has been followed with IMSC1 is that I have retained the commit-then-review (CTR) process that has been used for TTML1 and TTML2 to date.

[1] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/blob/gh-pages/EDITING.md



This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

Received on Monday, 9 May 2016 11:27:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:28 UTC