- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:33:25 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > 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] Is it ok to just point to the diff for the change description? > 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, and often multiple edits in flight), it is awkward to include > a diff link in the bug at the time the bug is resolved. Actually since I started including the bug number in the commit, I just just made the commit script post the diff to the bug. For example: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7416#c2 Is that ok? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 04:21:07 UTC