[rfc-i] GitHub references

Martin Thomson martin.thomson at gmail.com
Thu Mar 8 16:16:44 PST 2018


Can you explain your concerns with using hashes?

"July 2016" is effectively meaningless.  Even if the month has passed
and you verify that the content was the same throughout, git has this
wonderful way of adding new content with old timestamps.

I would be far more confident if you included a hash.  A short hash is
sufficient.  For mping, "80a5713866" would describe the current state.

On the title thing Paul pointed to, I agree with others that a title
is valuable.  It is reasonable to use the repo name as the title if
one is not set.  Or, to take the first header from the README if that
appears to be better.  Use discretion if they differ.  Bob's
suggestion draws on content that isn't in the source, which concerns
me.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 6:59 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
<rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> The RFC Editor is proposing to update the reference format for
> informative references to GitHub repositories (noting that GitHub
> repositories are not currently accepted as normative references).
> Specifically, we propose to standardize on the following:
>
> 1) No author name(s). A repository may have many contributors, and there
> is no way to easily determine major contributors versus all others.
>
> 2) The title of the repository will be whatever is in the top left of
> the main repository page.
>
> 3) The URL will be to the main page of the repository.
>
> 4) The reference will not include any particular commit hash. It will
> include the date of the last commit at the time the RFC-to-be is edited.
>
> So:
>
> OLD
>    [mpingSource]
>               Fan, X., Mathis, M., and D. Hamon, "Git Repository for
>               mping: An IP Level Performance Diagnostic", Sept 2013,
>               <https://github.com/m-lab/mping>.
>
> NEW
>    [mpingSource]
>               "mping", July 2016, <https://github.com/m-lab/mping>.
>
>
> Does anyone have any feedback re: the above proposal? This is outside
> the realm of CMOS today, so we're breaking some new ground here.
>
> Thanks!
> Heather Flanagan, RSE
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list