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

Re: Even for Note-track? Re: CFC - Standing permission to publish Working Drafts of COGA Gap Analysis

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:42:28 +0000
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <540137d4-f5e3-028b-9699-07425b993fa7@splintered.co.uk>
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?


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?

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_lauke
Received 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