- From: David LaPalomento <dlapalomento@brightcove.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:22:59 -0400
- To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com>, "Jerry Smith (IEP)" <jdsmith@microsoft.com>, "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACh87oc67oC_M=7k40aW7i-EfM_R9kGteHX9F7Ff3KQtsv-cGQ@mail.gmail.com>
As a developer very interested in MSE but less involved in the w3c process, a big +1 to this proposal. Having both trackers is a bit confusing and I suspect having more activity occurring in github will encourage the huge community active there to participate more. On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote: > > Would it make sense to make placeholder github issues for existing, > open, w3c MSE bugs, and restrict all MSE spec bug activity to github issues? > > > > I have no problem with us doing as long as we add a comment to each of the > former 19 Bugzilla bugs pointing forward to the appropriate GitHub issue. > I suggest you go ahead and do this ASAP. > > > > >2. Is it possible to update the w3c bug tracker to indicate that new MSE > bugs or activity on existing w3c MSE spec bugs should occur on github's > issue tracker? > > > > I am not sure how to do this. > > > > > Which versions of the MSE spec would need updating to reference using > github as the primary issue tracker for spec bugs (just the current > editor's draft, or some retro-active editing of earlier published snapshots > of the spec too?) > > > > W3C does not normally change even the Status section of published > documents. And for older documents we would NOT want to get rid of the > pointer to the Bugzilla component since historically it is the right > pointer. > > > > I would recommend that the best way to make sure that people are looking > at a TR page specification with the correct Status information is to get > going on turning on automatic publication of Editor’s draft for MSE as we > have for EME. I believe Jerry has an action to look into that. > > > > /paulc > > > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 > > Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > > > > *From:* Matt Wolenetz [mailto:wolenetz@google.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, October 08, 2015 7:18 PM > *To:* <public-html-media@w3.org> > *Subject:* Proposal: use only github for new MSE spec bugs > > > > At the moment, we are using both w3c and github to track open MSE spec > bugs. > > At the recent FOMS 2015 & Demuxed 2015 conferences, we heard praise from > other attendees of the move by EME to primarily using github's issue > tracker. > > In light of EME's move to gh for new issue tracking, external appeals of > similar for MSE, and to consolidate tracking of all new MSE spec bugs, I > propose that we move to using solely github for tracking newly opened MSE > spec bugs. > > > > Before moving forward, I would like to understand better: > > 1. Would it make sense to make placeholder github issues for existing, > open, w3c MSE bugs, and restrict all MSE spec bug activity to github issues? > > 2. Is it possible to update the w3c bug tracker to indicate that new MSE > bugs or activity on existing w3c MSE spec bugs should occur on github's > issue tracker? > > 3. Which versions of the MSE spec would need updating to reference using > github as the primary issue tracker for spec bugs (just the current > editor's draft, or some retro-active editing of earlier published snapshots > of the spec too?) > > > > Thanks, > > Matt >
Received on Friday, 9 October 2015 15:23:29 UTC