Re: make default repo branch "gh-pages" or keep as "master"?

On 3/5/16, 5:14 PM, "Mike Jones" <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>> wrote:

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!

using master as the "default branch" is fine by me, it just means that whenever we wish to "publish" the repo to http://w3c.github.io/webauthn/* we have to do an explicit push to the gh-pages branch.



From: Hodges, Jeff [mailto:jeff.hodges@paypal.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2016 4:37 PM
To: W3C WebAuthn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org<mailto: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