Re: Making editors' drafts public

Liam,

Although I have resigned as Chair and have not been attending 
teleconferences, I remain a member of the WG and might be able to modify 
the build scripts.  Andy might prefer to do it, in which case I'm sure 
he will let me know.  If I don't hear from Andy with instructions not to 
do it, I'll try to take a stab at it over the next week or two.

Hope this helps,
    Jim

P.S., If there's a change to Github, I am extremely unlikely to be 
involved in the build process.  Considering the likelihood of the WG 
continuing for more than another year or so, it hardly seems to be a 
wise use of resources.


On 10/7/2015 6:48 PM, Liam Quin wrote:
> On 2015-10-07 06:20, Adam Retter wrote:
>> On 7 October 2015 at 09:01, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:
>>> While we’re about it, is there anything we can do to reduce the 
>>> problem of CVS conflicts on the generated HTML?
>
> Do you run a cvs update in (or on) the output directory before 
> building? that ought to prevent that problem I think.
>
>>> Perhaps the build scripts should do an automatic CVS update on the 
>>> html directory at the start?
> I think that's a reasonable idea. Who is maintaining them now it's not 
> Jim?
>
>>> Normally I would say that automatically-generated files shouldn’t be 
>>> held under a version control system. But then we need a different 
>>> way of uploading them. Perhaps this is our opportunity.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. Presumably the generate HTML files could just be published to
>> the web server, rather than committing them to CVS also?
>
> All the files on the main w3.org server are in CVS currently; that's 
> the mechanism for putting them on the Web.
>
> We could use public hg or cvs on dev.w3.org, or yes github. I'm trying 
> to minimize changes, mostly because we're at a late stage and any 
> disruption for the editors would have make a huge improvement to be 
> worth it.
>
>> *if* we were to use GitHub, we could automate the build and publish
>> process by throwing Travis into the mix, this would allow our build
>> scripts to run on every commit and on success have the artifacts (e.g.
>> the latest HTML draft spec) published to the web.
>
> I'd rather avoid github for now if possible...
> (1) new processes and procedures
> (2) possibility of pull requests and issues via github for editors
> (3) w3c seems mostly set up for respec-based HTML on github, using 
> github-pages. That would be a major and I think unwelcome change.
>
> If the editors we have are mostly or all familiar with github and Ok 
> with it, (1) isn't an issue really.
>
> In the meantime I might look at setting up something to run via a 
> nightly cron job to copy files.
>
> Liam
>

-- 
========================================================================
Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL)     Phone: +1.801.942.0144
   Chair, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC32 and W3C XML Query WG    Fax : +1.801.942.3345
Oracle Corporation        Oracle Email: jim dot melton at oracle dot com
1930 Viscounti Drive      Alternate email: jim dot melton at acm dot org
Sandy, UT 84093-1063 USA  Personal email: SheltieJim at xmission dot com
========================================================================
=  Facts are facts.   But any opinions expressed are the opinions      =
=  only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody   =
=  else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand.  =
========================================================================

Received on Thursday, 8 October 2015 01:36:56 UTC