On Thu, 2016-12-29 at 11:44 +0100, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote: > Our drafts are currently on W3C infrastructure. I think it would be > helpful if we can republish easily on w3.org - not /TR since the > process isn't a tech specification. Ted? People are doing that a few different ways at present. Short version it is plausible and we may try to come up with a better unified method of doing so. I can help with specifics for process draft at a www.w3.org U RI. > > b) A public, archived W3C mailing list which historically has, > > and can continue to, accept feedback > > We have that too. > > > c) A public, archived W3C mailing list archiving all GitHub > discussions > > I think that would be a useful thing for backup. > > > d) A read-write mercurial mirror of the git repos on > hg.csswg.org > > Hmm. Was that hard to set up? If we could match that on the current > dvcs.w3.org repo we would have a continuous history… Most have decommissioned their mercurial repo when they move to github (with a redirect) and I think that is the preferred practice. In fact we would like to retire dvcs.w3.org or rather mercurial and perhaps have dvcs.w3.org a live checkout of master (or gh-pages) branch of all github.com/w3c repos but this is a bigger picture item beyond this discussion. -- Ted Guild <ted@w3.org> W3C Systems Team http://www.w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2017 22:08:34 UTC