- From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 01:14:50 +0000
- To: "Hodges, Jeff" <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>, W3C WebAuthn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <SN1PR0301MB16452253EDCA14BAFD36A06BF5B00@SN1PR0301MB1645.namprd03.prod.outlook.>
Can we please just use "master"? Git is hard enough without having to remember that this repository's Git procedures are different from every other Git repository that I use! Thanks, -- Mike From: Hodges, Jeff [mailto:jeff.hodges@paypal.com] Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2016 4:37 PM To: W3C WebAuthn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org> Subject: make default repo branch "gh-pages" or keep as "master"? http://w3c.github.io/specs.html appears to suggest making one's repo's default branch be "gh-pages" doing so would mean that all work-in-progress* (merged) in (to) the gh-pages branch will be publicly available automagically at http://w3c.github.io/webauthn/* e.g: http://w3c.github.io/webauthn/webauthn-web-api/Overview.html If we keep "master" as the default branch, then we would have an extra step of pushing changes from master to gh-pages branch in order to publish "editors' drafts" However, in looking at github.com/w3c/webappsec-credential-management<https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-credential-management> it appears that that is what they webappsec folk are doing over there, so maybe that's the way we should go. Again, http://w3c.github.io/specs.html advocates deleting the master branch and using just the gh-pages branch, which'd eliminate that extra push-to-gh-pages step noted above. But I wonder whether our working draft(s) can be publicly available (which is the case with everything in the gh-pages branch) prior to reaching first public working draft (FPWD) status -- Wendy/Harry? thanks, hth, =JeffH
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2016 01:15:21 UTC