Re: Put Editor's draft on TR page, not heartbeat formal publications -> RE: Evaluating policies; pubrules

On 03/22/2012 07:43 AM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:45:24 +0100, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>
>> On 03/20/2012 01:48 PM, Carr, Wayne wrote:
>>> The regular TR heartbeat Working Drafts are often useless at best since they're so often out of date with where the WG is
>>> with the Editor's draft. They also confuse people who don't know to look at the more recent editor's draft. Publishing them
>>> more regularly seems like it would involve too much overhead.
>>>
>>> Proposal: For WGs that have public editor's drafts, put the disclosure notice in the Editor's draft and put the Editor's
>>> draft on the TR page. Don't publish regular formal heartbeat drafts. Just publish formal versioned drafts for the required
>>> stages (First Draft, LC, CR, PR, REC). Also, provide access to the editor's drafts under source control so people can look
>>> at it at a particular date if they need to.
>>
>> I would rather not do this, but I also don't want the current process either.
>> This is because I feel there's usefulness in having an editor's draft that is
>> scratch space, that isn't official, and that we can use to work out exact edits
>> together in public.
>>
>> I also think the current system is horribly broken, because the /TR copy is
>> often so outdated as to be useless, and everybody is referring to editor's
>> drafts as if they're the official thing... which for many WGs, due to the
>> /TR publishing overhead, they effectively are!
>>
>> So I'm in favor of having live-editable drafts on /TR/shortname. But I think
>> the editor and the WG should be given the ability to choose which changesets
>> are published to /TR and which aren't. If I'm halfway through rewriting a
>> section, I don't want to push that to /TR. But I want it public so that the
>> people I'm rewriting it with or in response to can review what I'm doing.
>>
> So can this be achieved by just lowering the bar for editors draft to be pushed in /TR space, while still keeping editor draft
> as base for discussion and feedbacks?

No, because pushing to /TR currently requires a dated snapshot. And if you
dated-snapshot every typo fix in the name of keeping /TR up-to-date, you
lose the usefulness of having snapshots at all: it essentially becomes a
different view of the Mercurial repository with all the noise of the full
list of changesets.

Snapshots serve a purpose. Persistently up-to-date copies of a spec serve a
purpose. But trying to make one system serve both purposes makes both systems
broken.

~fantasai

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 21:33:59 UTC