- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 14:23:21 +1100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: spec-prod@w3.org
Hi Manu, > On 23 Nov 2021, at 3:04 am, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > So, let's fix this so it's not as painful as what we expect it to be. > > The simplest fix that I can think of is changing to this mode of operation: > > 1. The changelog in the specification lists "editorial > changes" and "substantive" changes since the last > release, like we do here: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#revision-history > > 2. You either link manually to the PRs for substantive > changes, or we upgrade rs-changelog to make that easier > for folks. > > 3. We get rid of all the proposed correction markup > and point AC Reviewers to the Changelog at the bottom > of each spec (which has links to the PRs if they really > want to dig in). > > 4. We provide a diff-marked version as a part of the > review. All of the above sounds very reasonable to me. > If we do those things, and IIUC, we don't disrupt the regular Github workflow > that most WGs are using. We just require "editorial" or "substantive" labels > on PRs done when revising a REC (which we already require when generating the > new errata.html pages). > > I've raised this as a Process CG issue here: > > https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/589 > > Thoughts? For folks who are interested, we've left some additional comments there. Kind regards, Marcos
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2021 03:23:29 UTC