Re: Results of calls for adoption

Whichever you're more comfortable with. Most of the editors push directly to the repo, unless they're making pull requests for consideration (e.g., proposals to close design issues).

Cheers,


> On 18 Apr 2015, at 10:44 am, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> 
> Do I make a clone on github, add there, then do a pull request?  
> 
> Or just clone to my computer and do a direct push back to the repository?
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> Not hearing any objection (once the scope of 5987bis was clarified), we’ll adopt the following as WG drafts:
> 
> * draft-reschke-rfc5987bis —> draft-httpbis-rfc5987bis
> * draft-reschke-http-cice —> draft-httpbis-cice
> * draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status —> draft-httpbis-legally-restricted-status
> 
> Julian, could you please add your drafts to the http-extensions repo?
> 
> Tim, I’ve added you to the editors team on Github, so you should be able to check in your XML source (or Markdown, if you use it) to:
>   https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions
> 
> Feel free to ask me, Julian and Martin for help, especially regarding integration into the Travis build system (which is Martin’s specialty).
> 
> Once we get that sorted out, we can publish -00 drafts.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see https://keybase.io/timbray)

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Saturday, 18 April 2015 17:48:05 UTC