[rfc-i] [Ietf-and-github] RFC Editor & Github
ekr at rtfm.com
Sun Feb 24 14:15:14 PST 2019
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 8:42 AM Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> So the theme I’m hearing here is that the github problem tracking tools
> suck for RFC editing, which is no surprise to me. Am I hearing that
Perhaps. The premise behind this WG (and I think experience) is that at
least for some WGs, the Github tools are pretty good -- or at least better
than what people were using before -- for developing the IDs that are the
input for RFCs. I recognize that there are people who don't seem to feel
that way, but I don't think that that's useful to debate here.
As a number of people have noted, I don't think the way we used Github for
the final copy-editing and typesetting phase of the RFCs worked that well
the one time we tried it. From my perspective, there were a number of
problems there, but the main one was intermixing copy-editing changes
(initiated by the RPC) with substantive changes (initiated by the author,
WG chairs, and ADs). The result was that the RPC was exposed to a lot of
churn as we worked through those issues. With that said, I did find that
having a tool which allowed one to track every change initiated by RPC and
respond to it was very helpful. At present, we do this by using two tools
together (diffs plus NEW/OLD), but this is a fairly clumsy system compared
to a tool like Pull Requests, let alone a top-tier tool like Phabricator.
As an analogy, open source projects used to mostly do code review by
examining diffs and then commenting on them, and most systems have now
moved to integrated diff and review tools instead.
What about the actual revision control system? Was that a problem, or
> was it the other stuff that didn’t work?
> Ietf-and-github mailing list
> Ietf-and-github at ietf.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest