W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Editor's Response in the proposed process (with particular note of spec diff links)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:38:54 -0700
Message-id: <CC2D1349-1186-440A-9CA6-569198EB7C25@apple.com>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hello WG & Editors,

I think it's time to start including the Editor's Response notes in  
bugzilla bug resolutions. We're informally starting to use other parts  
of the proposed Decision Policy and I'd like to start using the parts  
that apply to editor actions. I would also like to address Adrian  
Bateman's concern about

I'd like to ask editors to include the following boilerplate text  
(with the fields filled in appropriately) when resolving bugzilla  
bugs. Note: detailed rationale is not generally needed for minor  
editorial issues like typos. In general, bugs marked with the "NE"  
keyword should be considered non-editorial, i.e. they likely *do* need  
rationale. When in doubt, just put something brief like "Commenter was  
correct" or "This is not a typo, it's by design" or something along  
those lines.

(Boilerplate is between the rows of dashes.)


EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If  
you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this  
bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the  
editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to  
escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the  
TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the  
tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are  
able to do so. For more details, see this document: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html 

Status: ["Accepted"/"Partially Accepted"/"Rejected"]
Change Description: ["no spec change", or explain actual spec change]
Rationale: [give rationale for change or lack of change here]


Ian, Manu, please let me know if there are any issues with this.

The other piece of information we would like in every resolved  
bugzilla bug is a link to the relevant revision of the spec. I've  
talked to Ian about this so far, not yet other editors. He is  
including the bugzilla bug number in every commit. Ian tells me that,  
given the way he edits the spec (with a long processing pipeline  
before the change is fully committed,

Therefore: I'd like to ask for a volunteer to write a tool to add the  
spec diff information to bugzilla bugs. It should be a simple matter  
of looking at commit messages for completed commits, and adding the  
appropriate comment programatically. I'd like the comment to have this  
format:  "Diffs to Spec Text:http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/spec/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.3360&r2=1.3361 
". Can any of the people familiar with the spec production toolchain  
please help with this?

I'd like to ask other editors of specs with a Working Draft (I think  
only Manu currently) to please include the bug number in their commit  
messages, or just include a line in the above format in the EDITOR'S  
RESPONSE template itself.

Adrian: given the current status (bug numbers being included in the  
commit messages), are you satisfied in your concerns, or would you  
like to wait until we have the final automated step integrated into  
the production pipeline?


Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 00:39:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:01 UTC