On 02/02/2018 17:27, John Foliot wrote: > So... > > I know that GitHub is the tool of choice these days at the W3C, but here > I *really* think that if we moved the editorial work over to a wiki page > at this point, that we'd have what we need. Wikis provide the kind of > historical change data that we're looking for here, How is history in a wiki better/different from the commit history you'd get from git? https://github.com/w3c/coga/commits/master/gap-analysis/index.html In both cases, it's about being disciplined enough to write sensible change/commit messages, avoiding too many bitty little changes/commits (if needed, use commit amendments, interactive rebases, etc to keep the history clean), etc. > and once the heavy > lifting is done, we could then move back to GitHub, (or just publish the > darned thing). I suspect it's simply a matter of choosing the right tool > for the job, rather than trying to pound square pegs into star-shaped > holes... Choosing the right tool, absolutely. But why is a system that's explicitly all about version control and providing accurate change history like git not deemed suitable compared to a wiki? P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_laukeReceived on Friday, 2 February 2018 17:42:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:22 UTC