W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2018

Cleanup status-changes -> status-messages Re: My action Items

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:03:33 -0400
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <8141ccc7-0b42-5699-e6cf-23e75cb701a1@w3.org>
+Mike Gower because he has commits related to this

It's my fault the status changes branch showed conflicts with master. I 
renamed the status changes file to status messages in master, but should 
have done it in the working branch and set up a new branch. My excuse 
was I was in a hurry to get something working for publication.

I think I've straightened out the mess. The long and short of it is, the 
correct branch to work in is now status-messages. I *think* it has the 
latest content as intended by David and Mike, but because the edits were 
in a few places I'm not positive. I removed David's status-messages 
branch (after making a backup named status-messages-backup), and created 
a new status-messages branch that has the full commit history. This 
branch is able to merge cleanly into master. I would like David and Mike 
to check that the content as they expect before requesting merge from 
this branch.

About the related pull requests:

On 24/04/2018 12:17 PM, David MacDonald wrote:
> Is there anything that needs to be done with the existing PRs?
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/871 
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/871>
David appears to have closed this.
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/872 
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/872>
I closed this in the process of doing the cleanup above. A new pull 
request from status-messages can be made after David and Mike have 
checked it.
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/870 
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/870>
This is still open and valid for merging as far as I'm concerned, but I 
see Alastair has associated it with an issue, so I'll let that work 
through the process.

> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
> /  Adapting the web to *all* users/
> /            Including those with disabilities/
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy 
> policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Alastair Campbell 
> <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
>     Hi David,
>     > What should be done when the Understanding Branch is behind the master?
>     Michael may correct me, but I don’t think it matters that the
>     understanding branch is behind master, the key is that each
>     understanding branch was taken from master at a particular point.
>     If the edits in that branch are confined to the understanding doc,
>     we won’t get clashes.
>     If people branch off master at /different/ points and merge
>     changes into master, it gets very messy. (I did this previously!)
>     Unrelated updates get merged in, and merged in again from another
>     branch at a different stage, and again… they overlap a lot.
>     It’s a case of “don’t cross the streams”!
>     -Alastair
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2018 19:03:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:26 UTC