W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-payments-wg@w3.org > May 2016

Re: New repos for specs

From: Matt Saxon <matt.saxon@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 18:40:22 +0100
Cc: Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Message-Id: <77636042-E6DA-4BBA-862D-98CC8450E22A@gmail.com>
To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Can we not name the sepa repo as you suggest, this covers more than just sepa.

Let me have a closer look and suggest an appropriate name.


Sent from my iPhone

> On 3 May 2016, at 16:34, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> The chairs have resolved to follow the pattern being adopted by other groups and use a new GitHub repo per spec.
> This will allow you to subscribe only to the repos you want to track.
> We will still forward all repo update mails to the mailing list to accommodate those that are not on GitHub.
> Assuming we have no objections on Thursday's call we will move the basic card payment methods spec and payment method identifiers specs out of the browser API repo into their own repo and move the SEPA payment methods spec from the proposals into it's own repo.
> We are standardizing on a repo naming convention using the prefix "webpayments-" and will use "webpayments-method-" for any payment method specs.
> @Mike: Please can you create:
> w3c/webpayments-method-identifers
> w3c/webpayments-methods-basic-card
> w3c/webpayments-methods-sepa
> You can migrate the SEPA spec into it's repo before the call as the group already resolved to adopt this spec.
> Question: Would the group like to move the browser APi spec to:
> w3c/webpayments-browser-api (or similar) or is this too much overhead and unnecessary?
> Adrian
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2016 17:40:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 3 May 2016 17:40:54 UTC