Re: [csswg-drafts] Is it possible to have an "Edit on GitHub" or "Propose A Change" link to specs that points to a .bs file?

The Working Group just discussed `linking the bs sources`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;heycam> Topic: linking the bs sources<br>
&lt;heycam> github:<br>
&lt;heycam> chris_: this is for people proposing wording changes<br>
&lt;heycam> ... some people propose changes to generated files<br>
&lt;heycam> ... I was talking to this guy, asking how can we do it, so we can find where the bs file<br>
&lt;heycam> ... from the spec<br>
&lt;heycam> ... we've already got an ED, with a bs link<br>
&lt;heycam> ... I want to say "right here, this wording, I want to find that text in the bs file"<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: that's substantially more difficult<br>
&lt;heycam> ... I can do the first part<br>
&lt;heycam> ... second part is way harder<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: first part, I'm not sure it's a good idea<br>
&lt;heycam> ... makes it easier to propose trivial fixes<br>
&lt;heycam> ... but also easier for PRs when they should be filing issues, about more complicated problems<br>
&lt;heycam> rachelandrew: some people want to up the github contributions<br>
&lt;heycam> ... and file lots of trivial fixes<br>
&lt;fantasai> +1 to what Florian said<br>
&lt;heycam> tantek: as long as this goes through the W3C IPR thing<br>
&lt;heycam> ... that's actually a win<br>
&lt;heycam> iank_: for editorial changes it's non IPR required<br>
&lt;heycam> tantek: but if that's the default, then serious folks will think, no problem<br>
&lt;heycam> ... might be a barrier to these troublesome fixes<br>
&lt;heycam> chris_: I agree we do want to encourage issues for discussion<br>
&lt;heycam> ... we can just reply with that<br>
&lt;heycam> tantek: if someone shows up proposing new text, it's someone we can train to be a new editor!<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: sometimes<br>
&lt;heycam> chris_: they're already doing that, but just on a generated file<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: I think we should remove the generated files from the repo<br>
&lt;heycam> chris_: they're mostly gone, but sometimes pop up<br>
&lt;heycam> leaverou: don't we have a .gitignore in the repo?<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: we do, but if it got manually added, it will still be there<br>
&lt;heycam> chris_: so it's easy to do the straightforward thing?<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: I don't think it makes that big of a difference<br>
&lt;heycam> ... I'm concerned with florian's comment<br>
&lt;heycam> ... landing on a page to contribute a page without any context, what our processes are<br>
&lt;heycam> tantek: they're already doing that but against the generated versions<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: things on Bert's old preprocessor<br>
&lt;heycam> chris_: Fonts and Colors 3<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: CSS 2<br>
&lt;heycam> astearns: there are some FX specs too<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: we should just delete them and solve them that way<br>
&lt;heycam> tantek: does FX still exist?<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: as a repo, yes<br>
&lt;heycam> tantek: we can assimilate it?<br>
&lt;heycam> Rossen: we already have<br>
&lt;heycam> plinss: Shaders and Compositing 2 are the only two in there with generated files checked in<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: I can add some default boilerplate, with some macros that point to a new URL<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: weren't we saying that if the generated specs aren't in the repo we don't need that link?<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: no<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: because the purpose of that link is to avoid changing the output, and if the output isn't there, it's fine?<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: one benefit is that.  another benefit is to encourage small changes / typo fixes more easily<br>
&lt;heycam> ... less friction for typo PRs the better<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: we can try<br>
&lt;heycam> Rossen: how many non trivial PRs will we get?<br>
&lt;heycam> [some discussion about WHATWG contribution]<br>
&lt;heycam> Rossen: sounds like Tab can add a link to change the original source<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: I would prefer not to have a link without context to what editing the spec means<br>
&lt;heycam> Rossen: how to add that info?<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: we can do that if we want to, ways we can do it, but it's not a link to "here edit this spec"<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: I would like to try this out without assuming people will make substantive changes without discussion<br>
&lt;heycam> Rossen: let's roll it out to a couple of specs<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: I'll do it for all specs<br>
&lt;heycam> myles: let's just try it, get more engagement<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: no reason to do a subset<br>
&lt;heycam> Rossen: ok then<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: but would like to note the documentation sucks on how the WG operates<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: when you open a PR you get some information right?<br>
&lt;heycam> ... there's on old blog that's a bit outdated<br>
&lt;heycam> chris_: I know on GitHub you can have issue templates. can we do that for PRs?<br>
&lt;heycam> TabAtkins: yes<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> `"!Edit This Spec": "[VSHORTNAME]/"`<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: for quick fix, this is welcome, if substantial, don't start with a PR<br>
&lt;heycam> tantek: I've seen things about code of conduct etc. agreements, so presumably we can do this<br>
&lt;heycam> rachelandrew: I can write some text that's easy to read about contributions if that's helpful<br>
&lt;heycam> fantasai: I would like this ^ fixed up and merged in ebfore doing this<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: yes<br>
&lt;heycam> s/ebfore/before/<br>
&lt;heycam> ACTION: Tab to add an "Edit this spec" link to specs, once #2320 has been fixed<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2018 04:08:03 UTC