Re: Replace gh-pages editors draft with auto-published TR drafts

It would definitely be great if we could have the dated, frozen versions be W3C TRs.  We would still need to choose the timing, update the change log, freeze it sufficiently for Cullen's review, and then tag it in some way so we could return to it again if necessary to reproduce the dated, frozen W3C TR.  As long as we don't lose the ability to tie together what's in the repository with what's in the frozen, dated version, I'm okay with it.

-- dan
 
On Dec 2, 2015, at 9:28 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As some of you may know, W3C has deployed over the past few months a system that allows to publish documents as official W3C technical reports without involving the W3C Webmaster [1], and that can be plugged into a github-travis workflow [2].
> 
> So far, some of the specificities of our documents (special copyright statement, joint specs) prevented us from using this system, but the last of these barriers will be removed very soon.
> 
> I would thus like to propose we replace the current "editors draft" workflow, whereby the editors:
> * publish an "official editors" draft via an update to the gh-pages of our repos
> * produce and publish a frozen dated version of the same for archival.
> 
> The updated workflow would replace the production of a frozen dated version in github by its automatic production and publication as a Working Draft in W3C TR space.
> 
> The benefits of doing so would be:
> * avoid having 3 concurrent versions of "latest" for some meaning of latest (github master, github gh-pages, w3c TR); with that new approach github gh-pages and w3c TR would always be the same
> * less mechanical work for publishing updated editors draft
> 
> Now I realize that for gUM and webrtc-pc 1.0, we expect to move to CR sooner rather than later, and since that proposal mostly makes sense for WDs at this stage, it may not matter a lot in the short term.
> 
> But we already know we'll start a new cycle of WD for WebRTC-NV, and will likely need to start a new WD cycle for a next version of gUM at some point.
> 
> I am thus looking for feedback from editors if they're interested in me exploring this approach further.
> 
> Dom
> 
> 1. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2015JanMar/0005.html
> 2. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2015JanMar/0034.html
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2015 19:20:47 UTC