- From: Arthur Barstow via RT <sysreq@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 13:49:00 +0000
- CC: coralie@w3.org, doug@w3.org, plh@w3.org, public-touchevents@w3.org
On 5/30/14 9:27 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > I don't have the context here but, unless Doug tells me that I'm > mistaken, we don't provide access to hg to the CGs. This is simply not > part of the services we're willing to provide. Can the work be done on > github instead? What would be the harm in doing so? This CG is creating errata for the Touch Events REC (and perhaps an Edited Recommendation) as well as updates for the Touch Events Extension Note. We expect people to continue to use the HG location of these two docs as the place to find the latest version of the spec. It seems sub-optimal to have to create a new WG to do the above, thus the path of least resistance is to allow the CG to reuse the document repo it used while it was a WG. I suppose Github plus some redirection could be used instead, provided the history can be copied. -Art > > Philippe > > On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 06:45 -0400, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> The Touch Events CG wants to do follow-up work on documents published by >> the now-closed Web Events WG. The Web Events WG used the hg/webevents/ >> repo and it *appears* that directory is not writeable by members of the >> CG that need write access. >> >> Please set the permissions of the hg/webevents/ repo so that everyone in >> the Touch Events CG can write to that repo. >> >> -Thanks, Art >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: Should touchmove really always be synchronous and >> cancellable? >> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 12:53:50 -0400 >> From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> >> To: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> >> CC: public-touchevents@w3.org <public-touchevents@w3.org> >> >> >> >> On 5/29/14 10:01 AM, Rick Byers wrote: >>> I've followed Anne's instructions >>> <http://annevankesteren.nl/2010/08/w3c-mercurial> for setting up >>> mercurial for w3c, but whenever I try to push I get: >>> >>> pushing to https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents >>> searching for changes >>> 1 changesets found >>> abort: authorization failed >>> >>> I've verified that the username/password I have in ~/.hgrc works at >>> http://www.w3.org/users/myprofile, and in --debug output hg does >>> appear to be trying to authenticate with this username and password. >>> Does my account perhaps need to be marked as having mercurial push rights? >> I suspect the problem is the write access rights for each hg directory >> is on a per group basis and since the Web Events WG was closed, probably >> no one except perhaps W3C staff can now modify the directory. >> >> Doug - would you please look into this and make sure all members of the >> CG can have access rights to hg/webevents/? >> >> >>> I've made a branch from 'v1' called 'v1-errata', set the status back >>> to 'ED', updated the pub date and replaced the list reference from >>> public-webevents to public-touchevents. All sound ok? >> That all sounds fine to me. >> >> -AB >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> Rick >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com >>> <mailto:rbyers@google.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Ok, I'll start looking into how to make an update with hg (I'll >>> start with the simpler change in the other thread - fractional >>> touch co-ordinates). Jacob if you've got any notes/advice to get >>> me started that would be great! >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Jacob Rossi >>> <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com <mailto:Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>> wrote: >>> >>> In addition to Art’s point about the Principle of Least Surprise…. >>> >>> While I prefer git to hg, my preference here is to keep it in >>> hg so you can still diff against arbitrary editions past or >>> present. We could also create an errata branch to separate things. >>> >>> A W3C account is all that you need (technically, not >>> procedurally) to start publishing. Rick, if you’re >>> volunteering to do the editing then I can help you get the >>> environment set up. >>> >>> -Jacob >>> >>> *From:*Sangwhan Moon [mailto:smoon@opera.com >>> <mailto:smoon@opera.com>] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:16 AM >>> *To:* Arthur Barstow >>> *Cc:* Rick Byers; Doug Schepers; public-touchevents@w3.org >>> <mailto:public-touchevents@w3.org> >>> *Subject:* Re: Should touchmove really always be synchronous >>> and cancellable? >>> >>> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Arthur Barstow >>> <art.barstow@gmail.com <mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> On 5/15/14 10:47 AM, Rick Byers wrote: >>> >>> I can also make proposed edits via GitHub if that's >>> better... >>> >>> I think the PrincipleOfLeastSurprise suggests people would >>> expect to find the latest ED of the spec where the Web >>> Events WG last worked on it i.e. >>> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html>. >>> Would you please clone that repo, try to push an update >>> and let us know the results? >>> >>> If we are to do this, then I think the respec meta data should >>> probably be rolled back so it doesn't show the document status >>> as rec to avoid confusion. >>> >>> (This mixed top and bottom posting is hard to follow...) >>> >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Arthur Barstow >>> <art.barstow@gmail.com <mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com >>> <mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> On 5/9/14 11:48 AM, Rick Byers wrote: >>> >>> So should I just propose the exact text of the change >>> here in >>> e-mail and leave the doc work to you Doug (which the >>> community >>> could then review)? Or is there some system for me to >>> directly do the doc work, even though it'll be >>> published by >>> W3C staff? >>> >>> >>> I don't have a strong preference for you sending >>> proposal(s) to >>> the list vs. you updating the ED (although it seems like a >>> changeset/diff would be easier for reviewers, >>> especially if the >>> proposal affects more than one part of the spec). >>> >>> Doug? >>> >>> -AB >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sangwhan Moon [Opera Software ASA] >>> Software Engineer | Tokyo, Japan >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 13:49:01 UTC