Where I think we are on the outstanding questions:
* **whether or not to run Trac in parallel for a while**
I suggest that, for new proposals, we do not run Trac and gihub for new
proposal parallel. In practice this would mean:
1) We would set a date (that would presumably coincide with the acceptance
of this ticket) after which new proposals must be made on github and no new
proposals will be allowed on Trac. Discussions can continue on Trac until ...
2) We set another, later date, after which Trac will be turned off and its
content archived. Any unfinished Trac discussions will be effectively closed.
If there is still a will to continue a discussion then the proposal must be
raised anew as a github issue proposal. (This is not as extreme as it first
sounded to me - there are Trac tickets that have been open but haven't been
posted to for over 10 years - these were never going to be resolved before Trac
is turned off!)
* **whether or not to create new github issues in the cf-conventions repo,
the same repo as the copied Trac tickets, or yet another repo. [Whatever the
answer, labels will be in use to help discern issues.]**
It seems that there is support for copying the existing Trac tickets to a
new "archive" repository; but raising new proposals in the existing
cf-conventions repository. New proposals can happily coexist with other issues
(such as "should we use italics for example captions?") with the use of labels.
We would "fast-forward" the issue numbers in the cf-conventions repo so
that new proposals would have different numbers to old ones - currently that
means creating dummy issues up to and including nunber 174. This is important
because if we didn't do this then our issue referencing could break in the
future if we were to alter our change procedure yet again (such as if github
were to ever fail to meet our needs).
* **whether or not to move the conformance document to the cf-conventions
repo**
There is a compelling reason for moving the conformance document to the
cf-conventions repository in that then there would only ever need to be one
pull request per completed proposal. In the current situation (i.e. conformance
in its own repo), some proposals will need two pull requests.
Thanks, David
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/130#issuecomment-404755429
