I love the idea of moving to github. The one-repo idea, while much simpler from a maintenance point of view, could easily be a burden on users that subscribe to it. Even more so for people who can merge PRs (and thus will receive an email for a PR initiatedfor any spec).
Not saying it is blocking but it's something to keep in mind. Mail filters can go a long way here but filtering out specific specs kinda defeats the purpose of having so many eyes looking at everything. Le mardi 22 janvier 2013, Robin Berjon a écrit : > On 22/01/2013 17:14 , Tobie Langel wrote: > >> On 1/22/13 4:45 PM, "Robin Berjon" <ro...@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> You *do* need to make the proper commitments for the test suite, but >>> those are much lighter and can easily be extended to all. >>> >> >> Moving to GitHub should be an excellent occasion to revisit how the CLA >> works and provide better integration, e.g.: by using something like >> CLAHub[1]. >> > > FYI we're looking at CLAHub as a possible solution for this (either > directly or with a few modifications to tie it into our systems). No > promises but it's on the table. > > That's why we're proposing to ditch per-WG anything here. The way >>> html-testsuite is set up, we already have subdirectories for html, >>> canvas2d, and microdata. Those are all from the HTML WG, but they're >>> just listed as the individual specs. We can keep on adding more specs in >>> there (the Web Crypto people are looking to do that). >>> >> >> That sounds good to me. It's the per WG siloing I'm opposed to, not the >> one repository to rule them all idea. >> > > Good! Well, it looks like everyone agrees... If we're forging ahead, I > have admin rights to the repo so you know who to prod. > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon > >
