On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca> wrote:
For the third time in two days I find myself, when asking others for opinions
about some text, pointing at github commit logs. With the beautiful
makefiles we often have, one can't even depend upon having a formatted .txt
version there!
This is not a rant for or against git or github, but rather about what I
perceive as a shyness about posting intermediate versions of Internet Drafts
to the datatracker.
I understand that in academia, they never like letting half-baked ideas out,
and so the -00 that we see from academics are often overdue and overly
polished. I know I can't fight that, but at least the -01, etc. could be
issued faster?
I've even heard some push back from people along the lines of, "wow, that ID
has 27 revisions, is it really stable?", and my feelings have often been more
along the lines of, "wow, that revision has 27 revisions, the authors are
really keen and responsive".
I appreciate for some reviewers that having more revisions implies that they
think they have to look at the text more often.
But given the diff utilities, it shouldn't matter how many revisions there
were before times you look, as you can just skip the intermediate versions.
+1 and I'd rather save subsequent reviewers from picking up on the
same issues that have already been identified. I do have WGs post
revisions at several stages once it gets to AD review & IESG
processing for that reason and versions are cheap ;-)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software
Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
--
Best regards,
Kathleen