- From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 08:03:20 -0800
- To: "Hodges, Jeff" <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>
- Cc: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, W3C WebAuthn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOAcki9w9ietyADD5_uZxCmX8b=c6rcrPkV_WvJ5XpFvKbheZA@mail.gmail.com>
I understand there are some ways to automate this, e.g., to sync gh-pages on merging a pull request. Jeff: Maybe you could look at [1] and advise? [1] https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Hodges, Jeff <jeff.hodges@paypal.com> wrote: > On 3/5/16, 5:14 PM, "Mike Jones" <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 > <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 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 Monday, 7 March 2016 16:03:53 UTC