W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > December 2011

CVS or Mercurial? (was RE: Draft spec editorship)

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:55:47 +0000
To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B38381C1115@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
>>> The most urgent need right now seems to be to collect
>>> use-cases/scenarios and requirements in a document. Would you be willing
>>> to edit such a document?
>> Would love to.
>Could you start a document at http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/ ?
>That is where the very first draft is stored as well. Cvs is used for
>revision control.

I can certainly do that. I've actually started work on a document on the Mercurial server [1] on the W3C, since:
1.  Mercurial seems to be the version control system that new specs at the W3C are being authored in (see Indexed DB [2] (in WebApps WG), User Timing [3] (in Perf WG), and Contacts API [4] (DAP, recently migrated).
2.  It was _much_ less work to get started in that system than legacy CVS (since I only have a user/password combo and not a public/private key pair--yet).

I'm not certain if there are other pros/cons for/against using Mercurial as I'm fairly new to it...

If you don't mind having the doc on Mercurial, that's easier for me. I've set up a folder at:

However, I'm just as happy to work with good-old CVS also :)

Let me know if you'd still like to move forward with the CVS location.

[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/
[2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
[3] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/UserTiming/Overview.html
[4] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/ce922ee80ed2/contacts/Overview.html
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 17:56:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:08 UTC