- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:31:37 +0100
- To: public-html-testsuite@w3.org
Hi all, I've carried out an update to the directory structure as per the call. Here are the things that have changed: • Everything in IDs that isn't [a-z0-9-] gets replaced with a -, after lowercasing (there's one uppercase ID in the spec). Additionally, I replace consecutive - with a single one, and drop them from the start and end of IDs. • Whenever the ID needed to be changed, I dump a small JSON file called original-id.json in that file. It can be used to map back to the ID. JSON's overkill, but it's free. • We now have: html, canvas2d, and microdata as directories. Versions will be layered through branches. • I've included the script that does all this in the tools directory. It should now run anywhere. Be careful though, at this point it is still very destructive. When we've settled and moved stuff over I'll make it so that it is only additive. I haven't made branches yet since there's nothing concrete to do with them. But can we try to resolve that before next week's call? I think it would be good to start 2013 without having to worry about all this bikeshedding, and between now and then the content also needs to be moved to the new structure. Since branch naming really is a bikeshedding issue maybe we could just entrust it to a poll and call it a day? I'm happy to set that up if it means we spend less time picking the shed's colour. Likewise it would be good to make a decision on GitHub ASAP since that's essentially blocking all the new set up. One interesting thing that surfaced at the meetup I was at last night: even *designers* use GitHub. They were raving about the documentation, notably http://try.github.com/ that apparently got them all off the ground in 15 minutes. In full honesty, and without cheekiness, here's how I see the GitHub discussion: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Homegrown | GitHub ---------------------------------------------------------------- Have data | Sync data Time consuming setup | Free Requires maintenance | Free Requires learning | Everyone knows it Requires writing docs | Stellar documentation exists No community whatsoever | Huge community of the right people Ugly | OK Painful to use | Usable and improving Requires evangelism | People already there New rules and conventions | Existing, shared, known usage NIH Syndrome | Off the shelf ---------------------------------------------------------------- In fact I have yet to hear a single argument against using GitHub. Has anyone made one that I've missed? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 10:31:51 UTC