W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > October 2015

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

From: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:02:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHD2rsgvr8+m_OjL9BDnTnrXyck1FsscY3quW1jbUtE5qYQDnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com>
Cc: "Jerry Smith (IEP)" <jdsmith@microsoft.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, David LaPalomento <dlapalomento@brightcove.com>, "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>
I believe there is a <script> tag and some <meta> tags near the top of the
ReSpec source. I commented them out in EME since it pointed to Bugzilla.
I'm sure the script could be adapted; it's possible someone has done that
since I last looked.

David

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 22:03:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:49:06 UTC