- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 10:58:26 -0400
- To: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
- Cc: W3C VC Working Group <public-vc-wg@w3.org>
On 7/19/22 10:38 AM, Orie Steele wrote: > Having done this before, I prefer NOT to transfer the repo... (we didn't > transfer the repo for the did method registry). Yes, and in hindsight it was the wrong move because: 1. It bifurcated the issues -- we now have two repos w/ issues, the CCG one and the WG one. 2. It bifurcated the PRs -- again, two repos w/ PR history. So, when searching for issues, you have to search both repos, which people don't do, and they they re-raise old issues as new issues, which then cause the Editors to have to do a lot of work searching histories. As one of the Editors who had to bear the brunt of that migration and ongoing research, I'd like us to take a different path this time and not create more work than necessary for the Editors to: 1. Duplicate all open issues. 2. Search the history of issues and PRs across two different repositories. While the WG might not feel a lot of this pain, the Editors that do their due diligence and search repo histories for issues, PRs, and commits do. The easiest thing here is to just move the entire repo over from CCG -> VCWG. > I prefer to keep the repos separate, redirect and archive from the ccg > side. My preference is to migrate the repos, which do the redirection automatically. If spec redirection is needed, that can be accomplished via a simple HTML-based redirect (and is easy to set up). > Seems the first step is to FCGS on the ccg side. +1 to that being the first step. -- manu -- Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021) https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2022 14:58:53 UTC