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

What's the correct way of removing the "See a problem? Select text and
[file a bug]" box at the top right of the MSE spec? I noticed this refers
to the w3c bug tracker; also, the EME spec does not include this box.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:14 PM Jerry Smith (IEP) <jdsmith@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Perfect.
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Cotton
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 13, 2015 11:59 AM
> *To:* Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com>; David LaPalomento <
> dlapalomento@brightcove.com>
> *Cc:* Jerry Smith (IEP) <jdsmith@microsoft.com>; <public-html-media@w3.org>
> <public-html-media@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Proposal: use only github for new MSE spec bugs
>
>
>
> >I assume I should resolve the original w3c bug as "MOVED" with an
> appropriate link to the github bug.
>
> Works for me!
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *Matt Wolenetz
> *Sent: *13/10/2015 2:10 PM
> *To: *David LaPalomento; Paul Cotton
> *Cc: *Jerry Smith (IEP); <public-html-media@w3.org>
> *Subject: *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
>
>
>
>