Re: Proposal: use only github for new MSE spec bugs

As discussed in this morning's media task force MSE teleconf, I'll file new
github issues for each of the currently active w3c bugzilla MSE spec bugs
and link to them from the w3c bugs, and update the bug tracker links in the
editor's draft.

*Paul/Jerry*: Once I've created the corresponding github bug, I assume I
should resolve the original w3c bug as "MOVED" with an appropriate link to
the github bug. Is this correct? This would allow us to more easily
discover newly filed w3c MSE bugs that might still happen after this
migration.

Thanks,
Matt

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:23 AM David LaPalomento <
dlapalomento@brightcove.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>