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

I can confirm my edits are there and its ready to go as far as I'm
concerned.



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

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 3:03 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote:

> +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
>
> David appears to have closed this.
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> 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
> > 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
>>
>
>
>