- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:55:54 -0600
- To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dmg_WPB_2BBNb5XyHUoN9GExD1Vbgis-6K4roW-4bYMg@mail.gmail.com>
After some discussion with Nigel, I have updated the Editing Process document to: - add section on nominal review period - add information about use of the following labels to help the editor and reviewers track merge related activity: - Merge Early - used to mark *early* merges - Merge Standard - used to mark *non-early* merges - Merge Objection - used to mark objections to merges The Merge Early label is mandatory; while the Merge Standard label is optional. A PR merge that went the full nominal review period before merge is not mandated to have a Merge Standard label, which can be assumed to apply. Part of the goal in refining this language is to provide enough framework to permit reviewers sufficient comfort level in managing reviews of early merges, and, further, that it should be possible for this process to be used by multiple documents|editors, e.g., TTML2 and IMSC2, where it becomes the editor's prerogative as to whether to take advantage of early merges or not. On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > I have documented the (new) TTML2 Editing Process [1]. This process adopts > the standard github pull-request mechanism; therefore, it provides the > advantages of fine-grained review of issue-based merges. > > The only variation to what has been followed with IMSC1 is that I have > retained the commit-then-review (CTR) process that has been used for TTML1 > and TTML2 to date. > > [1] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/blob/gh-pages/EDITING.md >
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 18:56:43 UTC