On 12/7/2010 2:32 PM, Simon Wilkinson wrote:
On 7 Dec 2010, at 19:14, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
Is this something the group would like to try?
I think there are two issues
The first is document format. If we're interested in reviewing differences
between revisions of documents, then we would need to agree on a single,
structured, submission format such as XML. This is
different from that used by the I-D archive, and would penalise those who
aren't prepared to go through the trauma of xml2rfc. Gerrit wouldn't be able to
handle plain text.
The second is whether gerrit is actually a good place to have wide ranging
design discussions. Our experience with the OpenAFS gerrit suggests that there
is a point where these kinds of conversations
become unmanageable in gerrit, and have to migrate to email. This means that
you end up with your history in two places, something I think would be a
hinderance when it comes to writing protocol
documents.
I tend to agree with Simon. We have a small set of developers and other
interested parties, who may not use gerrit. Requiring them or newcomers
to use it may not be as open as we would like.
Cheers,
Simon.
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
--
Douglas E. Engert <[email protected]>
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
(630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
