Re: [WG-UMA] Handling spec writing process @ GitHub

Oh sorry, you did address closing the repo. I think we can only execute on “Only primary editors should have write access to the repository and should be allowed to make changes directly to it” if we do that, and it will have the same effect on the issues, iirc. Eve

On 1 Sep 2015, at 9:05 PM, Eve Maler wrote:

This makes sense to me. I think James brought up using branches for everything just because he’s involved in insanely large projects. :-)

We didn’t actually conclude our discussion of whether to “close” the repo in order to look after IP hygiene, but it sort of relates to this topic. (Though pull requests from random non-participant strangers can always be put aside; it’s more the issue discussions that we were asking about).

Eve

...

On 1 Sep 2015, at 7:24 PM, Justin Richer mailto:jricher@mit.edu> wrote:

The overhead associated with fully distributed development when there is a clear core team is not worth the headaches it can cause, especially since nobody that I can see would be taking the job of patch integrator to manage all the pull requests. Having an editor create a pull request and then merge it themselves into the main repository is just a waste of that editor’s time.

Only primary editors should have write access to the repository and should be allowed to make changes directly to it. Things that are WG consensus should go on “master” (or the appropriate version-tracked major branch), proposed solutions and text by the primary editors should go on branches in the main repository and brought to the group for feedback.

Non-editors (like myself) can fork the repository, branch, and create either pull requests or simply reference commits and issues from there.

— Justin

...

On Sep 1, 2015, at 10:14 PM, Maciej Machulak mailto:maciej.machulak@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

I refer to my earlier email - any comments? :-) Thanks!

Maciej

On 27 August 2015 at 22:39, Maciej Machulak mailto:maciej.machulak@gmail.com> wrote: Hi,

It was discussed today how the current process of spec editing looks like on GitHub (currently the spec is here: https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma). All the changes are done on this repository, some via branches and some directly to the master branch. It was suggested that maybe we could use distributed repos (each editor would have a fork of the repo) and changes to the main repo would be done via pull requests.

While I agree that using pull requests is best practice, I think we could do without this for UMA spec editing. The current setup which we have is pretty low overhead and sufficient for our needs (we could probably improve on using branches but that's also not something we have to strictly stick to).

However, I'd like to hear the opinion of others. Let me know so that we can act accordingly.

Maciej

-- Maciej Machulak email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com mailto:maciej.machulak@gmail.com mobile: +44 7999 606 767 tel:%2B44%207999%20606%20767 (UK) mobile: +48 602 45 31 66 (PL)

-- Maciej Machulak email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com mailto:maciej.machulak@gmail.com mobile: +44 7999 606 767 (UK) mobile: +48 602 45 31 66 (PL) _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org mailto:WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma

_______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org mailto:WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma

Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.com mailto:xmlgrrl@gmail.com

Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.com