- From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:15:49 -0400
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
- Cc: Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+eFz_LgL6oMdLkEuZ76-TcUp2Mwv=RXqMGdTN-gcRfqaVaFEw@mail.gmail.com>
My proposal is that we setup auto-publishing using the appropriate tooling but do this off a new branch called "working-draft" or similar. The editor's drafts will continue to be maintained on the "gh-pages" branch so they can be easily viewed at w3c.github.io and the chair/editors will recommend merging "gh-pages" into "working-draft" whenever a significant change has been made. We'll notify the group via the list whenever a new WD is published. On 13 April 2016 at 14:51, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote: > This is the problem with the model - thanks for saying it so succinctly > Chaals. I think it is incumbent on the working group / editors to ensure > there is a loud shout when there are significant changes that need review, > as opposed to spelling and formatting fixes. That's a process problem - > but it feels surmountable. > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Chaals McCathie Nevile < > chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:49:23 +0200, Manu Sporny < >> msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: >> >> On 04/12/2016 06:59 PM, Shane McCarron wrote: >>> >>>> I am super open to adopting a working model like the following: >>>> >>>> * Propose changes via PR >>>> * Debate PRs until agreed or rejected >>>> * Merge PRs that are agreed >>>> * Automatically rev the WD via Echidna (W3C publication tool that just >>>> works) daily if there are merges. >>>> >>> >>> +1 to this working model with an emphasis on using Echidna to do >>> auto-publication of EDs/WDs. >>> >> >> I don't mind what process the group uses to publish, so long as it is >> reasonably lightweight and avoids the case where people have to fight over >> a particular draft since the next chance to provide something to the world >> will be in a year. I note that public editors' drafts are a big help with >> that too, handled sensibly. >> >> Unless there is some kind of signal like "we made a real change here, >> please look at it", there's a problem. I'm can closely follow the issues >> list and review pull requests regularly, where I mean "every six months". >> Otherwise, it is not possible. Knowing the difference between the changes >> people consider important and worthy of close review, vs those that are >> editorial or otherwise minor, is an important guide to enabling review that >> worth the time it took. >> >> cheers >> >> chaals >> >> -- >> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex >> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com >> >> > > > -- > Shane McCarron > Projects Manager, Spec-Ops >
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2016 20:16:18 UTC