- From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 18:39:27 -0500
- To: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>
- Cc: ARIA Editors <public-aria-editors@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5ed99042-d03d-80ca-cb11-bd3e67abfe87@w3.org>
On 07/12/2016 4:03 PM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote: > Who will control common Whomever we want. As it will now be in a standalone repository, we can have as many or as few people committing to it as seems useful. We coordinate this amongst the ARIA editors. > and what is the update process if needed? Plan A is there would be a Travis-CI script that updates all the forks whenever a commit is pushed to the aria-common repository. If for some reason that runs into problems, there would be a simple procedure that we could train a couple editors on. Michael > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 7, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org > <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote: > >> In today's ARIA Editors call we discussed the ongoing issue with >> handling the common resources when splitting the ARIA repository: >> >> https://www.w3.org/2016/12/07-aria-editors-minutes.html#item03 >> >> Given intractable problems with getting submodules to work with >> rawgit, and the need for that feature to work, we revisited forking. >> The proposal now is to: >> >> 1. Put the common files in their own repository (aria-common) as >> previously planned; >> 2. Put copies of the files (forks) in each of the ARIA repositories >> after we split; >> 3. Set up a commit hook that updates each of the forks whenever an >> update is pushed to aria-common; >> 4. Document that people should not edit the aria-common forks in repos. >> >> This isn't the theoretically right way to use git but is practical >> and achievable, and unblocks the repository split project. We wanted >> to run the thought past the rest of the editors to see about thoughts >> before making a firm decision to implement. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Michael >>
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2016 23:39:31 UTC