- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:05:27 -0500
- To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@mozilla.com>, "Hodges, Jeff" <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>
- Cc: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, W3C WebAuthn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <56DDB4D7.1080904@w3.org>
On 03/07/2016 11:03 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > 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 Yes, I believe github.io output can be automated for the Working Draft (as per W3C routine) without too much trouble, and I'd support gh-pages for the *one* document that merges the 3 FIDO 2.0 Member Submissions. However, I just made github repos for the three documents without gh-pages to reflect the consensus of the WG to formally adopt the FIDO 2.0 drafts and as a baseline to start the editing process of making our FPWD as a unified document. Let's aim to get that FPWD done by our next F2F - likely May in Berlin. As for telecons, I'll send a separate email at the end of tomorrow as a few crucial folks still haven't responded to the Doodle poll. yours, hary > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Hodges, Jeff <jeff.hodges@paypal.com > <mailto:jeff.hodges@paypal.com>> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 17:05:47 UTC