Re: Editorial activities

Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> writes:
> Firstly, I committed some changes on the main branch, which you'll see
> on the "Code" tab at https://github.com/qt4cg/qtspecs - these were
> changes I made locally over previous months, and it wasn't feasible to
> separate them as individual commits.

It would still be good, in the future, to use the PR mechanism. Even if
it’s just one big PR. There was a markup error in there ;-) and the PR
build process would have caught that!

> * etc/XT40 is an index of section headings used by the build process.
> The change picked up here is an editorial change to the XSLT spec; I'm
> afraid I don't know why it's present on this branch.

Ideally, these files shouldn’t be in the repository at all, but they’re
used for making “xspec” cross references. If they weren’t in the repo,
we’d have to build all the specs (twice) every time.

I don’t know why the change appears here. Perhaps the etc/XT40 file was
accidentally not checked in with the XSLT spec change. Or something.

> Although I've created the branch on the server, I haven't actually
> created a pull request to merge it. In fact, I got some kind of
> authentication error when I attempted to do so.

You have created the PR, it’s https://github.com/qt4cg/qtspecs/pull/134

You’re just getting an error message because the commit is unsigned.
I think there are two options here:

1. Just accept this as legacy and when we’re ready to accept it, we
   check the “merge without waiting for requirements to be met”
   checkbox and merge it.

2. If you’ve sorted out the signed commits changes, then make a new PR
   with a signed commit and close this one.

> Norm understands the technology of how the HTML specs are re-generated
> and I'll leave him to sort that out (I've run the build locally and
> checked the output, but it gets run again on the server using a
> continuous integration hook.)

Indeed it does. Now that we’re actually working on this again in
earnest, I’ll probably try to spend a little time cleaning things in the
build up. It has a long history going back a decade or two. It would be
good to streamline things and remove some cruft.

But it’s hardly going to be a priority!

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
Saxonica