On 02/03/2017 06:07, Patrick McManus wrote:
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!
You can fix this with better tooling within github and travis integration
fwiw. Checkout the httpbis github https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions
- you'll see the for each adopted draft the README.md has links to the
"editor's draft" in both txt and html as well as the working group draft.
The former is auto-generated on every push to the repo, the latter is a
pointer to datatracker.
I'm not arguing against updating data tracker more often - just saying this
'editor's draft' convention can work very well between official revisions
no matter the cadence a WG chooses.
The details of that discussion probably belong on
ietf-and-github(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org,
but I must point out that this way of working *excludes* from the
discussion WG participants who don't grok github. Substantial issues
need to be discussed on the mailing list and substantial (non-typo)
revisions need to be posted as I-Ds.
Brian