Re: ARIA common files approach

While I'm no longer an "ARIA editor" since HTML-AAM moved to Web Platform,
the HTML-AAM still relies on those common resources, and this proposed
solution works for me.

Thanks, Michael.

Jason

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote:

> 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> 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
>
>
>