Re: Tools/resources we use (meta-discussion)

Just a heads-up (for those on the TF who perhaps haven't set up their 
notifications from GitHub yet) that I've started using the issue tracker 
to tackle some of the initial issues I had with the current work - 
https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues

Generally, I find github issues work best to track reasonably small, 
self-contained "nuggets", keeping the discussion on issues quite 
focused. Once there seems to be some initial consensus, or if it's 
easier to "show, don't tell", I generally find that filing a pull 
request (cross-referenced with the issue) then helps to solidify a 
resolution to an issue - pull requests are where the fine detail (like 
exact wording, punctuation, etc) can still be fine-tuned (as GitHub 
allows very granular code comments, even per-line comments if 
necessary). Once everyone is happy/can live with what's proposed in the 
PR, it gets merged and the original issue is also closed.

For larger discussions (that are more general, require some larger 
reworking of aspects of the spec, or have longer "philosophical" 
implications) I find it's often easier to still use mailing lists, 
though...so it's not to say all discussion/work now should simply be 
done in GH.

The wiki itself is best, in my opinion, as a storage for research, 
background info, rationale, etc which would be too large to simply slap 
into issue descriptions.

Thoughts?

P

On 23/06/2016 15:49, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> Perhaps something to discuss here on the list first, rather than taking
> up a huge amount of time in a call..I don't know about anybody else, but
> I'm occasionally confused about what the current state of work on things
> is. While there's a lot of stuff in the wiki, it seems there are a lot
> of bits and bobs that don't allow for an easy "in" to the work done so
> far, and what's left to do.
>
> Now I'm not sure what the solution is, but I wonder if perhaps github
> could help here? Would it perhaps be possible to create a single master
> document with all the proposed SCs, in whatever state we last left them?
> And any suggestions for change to be made as proper pull requests that
> can be reviewed/commented on? And making THAT the one true authoritative
> source? Wiki, mailing list, etc are still useful of course for more
> broader initial discussions, and the document more general thinking
> around stuff...
>
> (incidentally, this is the way we're mostly working in the Pointer
> Events WG, and for the most part it serves us well...but that's not to
> say that this would work for everybody here)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> P


-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Sunday, 26 June 2016 09:13:20 UTC