- From: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:27:06 +0200
- To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: public-svg-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:31:06 +0100, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Erik Dahlstrom: >> IMHO it would be nice if the publish version was not tracked by >> the version control system at all until it was put in datespace >> (separate location). The w3 mercurial server should instead just run >> the necessary scripts after each commit/push, and keep an editor's >> draft copy up to date that way, but separately from the VCS. >> >> There's really no need to keep updating and checking in those copies >> manually like we do at the moment. It's just extra manual work. > > You might be right, but I don’t know whether the W3C systems people > would be happy running build scripts on the hg server, given they are > quite complex – they would presumably want to review them to ensure they > don’t open any security holes – and will take up server CPU time. That's a valid concern, and I'm guessing we won't be able to justify this. Well, as long as we can make it very hard to miss that some newly generated files need to be added and checked in, or that a previously generated file is now removed, then fine. >> It would be nice if we had a more easy to use way to review the spec, >> something along the lines of http://www.reviewboard.org/. > > That would be nice. It does mean one more thing to request from the w3c systems people (or we'd need to set it up somewhere else). -- Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 13:28:03 UTC