RE: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description

I  have to agree with Lisa as I am having problems traching where I am with my SCs and when I am travelling or away for a few days the catch up is so much easier in one document with revisions that can be clearly viewed.

If we are not allowed to use Google docs keeping the conversation in the original issue makes it easier for those of us who fail to push the pull request!

Best wishes
E.A.




________________________________
From: lisa.seeman [lisa.seeman@zoho.com]
Sent: 21 February 2017 11:03
To: Steve Lee; W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org
Cc: Alastair Campbell; public-cognitive-a11y-tf
Subject: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description

Hi
Can we keep all the discussion in the original issue and not in pull requests

also the person who submitted the issue can put at the top f the issue the current wording proposal that would be even better.

The SC manager will have to ask the proposer to add the new text but I think that is a small price to pay for tracking. It also means the propose is on top of the current wording

to be honest I would rather it was all done in a google doc

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>




---- On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:30:59 +0200 Steve Lee<steve@opendirective.com<mailto:steve@opendirective.com>> wrote ----
+1
Steve Lee
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com


On 20 February 2017 at 23:53, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
> If we stick to pull requests as the place for discussion, then I recommend:
>
> Keep the up to date SC text & new glossary terms in the description of the pull request.
>
> That way it is at the top, and (assuming the SC manager does the pull request) it can be kept up to date.
>
> I had issues on a Resize text where it went through a lot of change, and people were referring to the old version in the issue, which I couldn't update. Frustrating for everyone, so it seems best to keep it up to date at the top of the place it is being discussed.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 11:09:52 UTC