On 1/22/13 2:23 PM, "Robin Berjon" <ro...@w3.org> wrote:
>On 22/01/2013 13:27 , Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
>> I'm not really sure if that is needed. If we can trust someone in one
>> repository, why not in all?
>
>I'd add to that: the odds are that if someone is screwing things up,
>it's better to have more eyes on what they're doing.
>
>> But what wins me over, is really the overhead question. Do anyone really
>> want to manage lots of repositories? And for what reason? Also, we
>> want more reviewers. If I'm already added for CORS, I could help out
>> for say XMLHttpRequest if there's a submission/pull request languishing
>> there.
>
>I think Odin makes convincing arguments. For me it's really the outreach
>argument. Just one repo, carrying its one setup and one set of docs, can
>easily be pitched as the One True Place to Save The Web. It's a lot
>easier to explain at a conference or such: just go there, and patch stuff.
Yes, I guess what I want to avoid at all costs is the split per WG which
has boundaries that partially happen at IP level, rather than strictly at
the technology level.
Whether we end up as:
w3c-tests/
deviceorienation/
html5/
pointerevents/
progressevent/
xmlhttprequest/
or:
deviceorienation-tests/
html5-tests/
pointerevents-tests/
progressevent-tests/
xmlhttprequest-tests/
Doesn't really matter (though I do find the former more readable). What
bothers me however is how had to parse per-WG-organization is for
newcomers.
--tobie
