The important factor for
me is the work flow and people, not the technology. Git
and github are a bit nicer to work with than svn, the
merging is a bit better etc but we can support
collaborative editing either way around.
I will vote for github as it has a number of useful
tools and the work flow is a little neater and more
transparent but it's not the vital factor. We can leave
CF-Trac as is and still use either tool option.
What I think is valuable is that a number of people make
edits to the conventions document and a reviewer casts
their eye of each change set to ensure coherence and
merge this in.
I think there are a number of busy people who could
spare a little time to write up an approved trac ticket
and a number of busy people very familiar with the CF
Conventions document who could spare a little time to
review a single merge request based on one ticket and
merge it or return it for rework.
My observation is that there is not one busy person who
can spare enough time to do this for all the approved
but unfinished trac tickets.
It may be that having one reviewer, responsible for
consistency, and multiple editors still presents a
significant speed up compared to now, but I am not
completely convinced that one person needs to be
responsible for the whole document.
Before we get to far into technology discussions, can
we agree that in principle that multiple editors with
a 'review then merge' process is a good idea?
Or are there reasons why multiple editors and
reviewers is not preferred, accepting that this puts a
large lag time on publishing?
If we agree this thought process and that we can do
something about it then I'll engage with whatever
technology is put in front of me. Github is a slight
preference in my mind, but whatever's quickest to get up
and running has to be a worthwhile candidate.
I assume changes and new accounts to the CF SVN system
are managed at PCMDI so I don't know how easy it is for
someone with administration rights to engage with this.
For github we can create a new 'organization' in a few
minutes and put the conventions source in as a project.
I can help with this, but it doesn't need me, it's easy
to do.
The challenge is agreeing roles and responsibilities,
this is an issue of people, not of technology, in my
mind.
all the best
mark
________________________________________
From: CF-metadata [
[email protected]]
on behalf of Signell, Richard [
[email protected]]
Sent: 30 September 2013 15:30
To: Gregory, Jonathan
Cc: CF metadata
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Can we please close ticket 93
and modify the latest CF document accordingly?
Jonathan,
The good thing about the git "pull request" method of
updating
CF-conventions would be that someone can fork the
repository (make
their own copy of the document, in this case), make the
edits related
to their issue, and then submit a "pull request" to the
person with
authority to update the master document.
The advantage is that the person with responsibility for
the whole
does not have to make all the edits themselves -- yet
they can easily
see and review how the edits look in a revised copy, and
these can be
accepted or discussed further with the community.
So basically best of both worlds: easier for the
community to
contribute, and less work for the person with
responsibility to
maintain the master.
-Rich
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Jonathan Gregory
<[email protected]>
wrote:
> Dear Mark, Rich, Bryan et al.
>
> I am definitely in favour of having a new version
too, but I am nervous about
> involving lots of people in what is essentially the
editorial task of updating
> the document. When many people revise bits of a
document, especially if they
> have not worked on it before, there is the
possibility of inconsistency. You
> still need someone to take responsibility for the
whole.
>
> The main reason for slow progress in CF discussions
is the limitation on brain-
> power resources, not the technology for deploying
those resources, I think. The
> number of people who can make time to follow our
detailed and difficult
> discussions is understandably limited. None of us
has it as a day-job!
> However it would be interesting to know more about
how different technology
> from trac would make the task easier.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
