- From: Marcos Cáceres <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 01:03:47 -0700
- To: w3c/permissions <permissions@noreply.github.com>
- Cc:
- Message-ID: <w3c/permissions/pull/99/r70580901@github.com>
> env:
> global:
> - ENCRYPTION_LABEL: 104fbe69e8fa
> - COMMIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL: travis-ci@w3.org
> + - URL="https://w3c.github.io/permissions/"
> + - DECISION="https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2015Mar/0170.html"
> + - secure: SneznWMBm52ct+mFI6NAVrB8k/BjO/H/hjR1eB3tjPwF0vzpL5fnbD1mmlNmVJMTWMsSUfI917JotA+7lfwoWJuHwlq2WfzQ0ybfvtuqjo7LS22T5X8IFYmCyVNR5asbJha/LNhqUyGDsZlPBgbKK0hqTd8eWjjQTztnlSrorGM=
> +
> +after_success:
> + - '[ "${TRAVIS_PULL_REQUEST}" = "false" ] && curl "https://labs.w3.org/echidna/api/request" --data "url=$URL" --data "decision=$DECISION" --data "token=$TOKEN"'
> I've been defending some of the content here by saying that we'll need to ask for consensus on it later, but if this is going to start auto-updating https://www.w3.org/TR/permissions/ and calling it a Working Draft, I think we're going to get some objections.
Yeah, that's why I thought that only if something hits "gh-pages" should it call echidna. However, I think it's better to only have one version of the spec (even if the stuff is controversial) - controversial stuff should just be marked as such with an issue and a call for people to collaborate on reaching consensus... or else we risk never being able to get the spec on TR because there is likely always going to be controversy.
---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/permissions/pull/99/files/a9e27e43142e2ddb0e51380fb446a4cfe2a832b3#r70580901
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2016 08:04:35 UTC