- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 16:34:56 +0400
- To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 16:27:27 +0400, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > w3process-ISSUE-35: Clarify "base" document for Technical Reports change > requests [Document life cycle (ch 7)] > > http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/35 > > Raised by: Arthur Barstow > On product: Document life cycle (ch 7) > > The first order problem is that it is not clear which document should be > used as the basis for change requests for the Technical Reports process. > It appears there are at least two candidates: > > 1. http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html > > 2. Chaals' document > > After that is clarified, the canonical document must be placed in some > type of source code control system that facilitates creating and > proposing patches. My preference is to use GitHub so PRs can be used. > W3C's Hg/Mercurial would be second preference. Please do NOT use CVS. Yeah, this is a known issue - thanks for tracking it. I hope to have a resolution today. I prefer to use a W3.org URL for w3c documents, so I have asked for a way to publish based on the hg repository. Hopefully that will be in place shortly, and the process of figuring out how to process the process will become easier to process... cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 8 July 2013 12:35:31 UTC