[dxwg] Should we split the DXWG GitHub Repo? (#1216)

riccardoAlbertoni has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/dxwg:

== Should we split the DXWG GitHub Repo? ==
I report below some of the points arisen during recent calls.
Please consider contributing to the discussion with your thoughts.

Among the proposals discussed: 
- One distinct repository for each deliverable, i.e., a repo for UC, DCAT, PROF & ConnegP and perhaps Guidance;
- Splitting UC but maybe not the rest ;
- Splitting off non-DCAT work and keep DCAT where it is;

Among the advantages of splitting : 
- It may make it easier to see what's going on compared to the current single, large, repo;
- It is a good opportunity to make more visible the issues relating to the work of the specific deliverable;
- Easier management of errata (one errata document for each repo containing a rec, instead of one document for all recs or one errata document for each recs, all in the same repo, but sharing the unassigned errata);

Among  the concerns expressed:
- We don't we want to lose any of the discussions; we need to ensure that all issues  and discussions are retained; ( see Philippe's suggestion about how this could be achievable)
- The repo split is too late in the day and would take too long for little benefit, and high risk;

In case we go for the splitting, Philippe has suggested to clone repository - keep the history of commits - then transfer issues to the clone, there is a concept of transferring issues ( https://‌help.github.com/‌en/‌github/‌managing-your-work-on-github/‌transferring-an-issue-to-another-repository) 

(For a better understanding of how and where the points above have emerged you can have a look at the following minutes of recent calls.  
https://www.w3.org/2020/01/28-dxwg-minutes )

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1216 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2020 14:42:49 UTC