> On 17 Apr 2025, at 08:03, Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> wrote: > > Hi, > On 16.04.2025 20:19, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> Jay, >> >> Thanks for the update. I am puzzled by the following paragraph. >> >> > Working cooperatively with authors who use GitHub is a more complex >> > proposition and is still being looked at. A stumbling block is the >> > regularly requested feature for the editors to send PRs, labelled as >> > format edits or content edits or by severity or with some other label. >> > Unfortunately this just does not fit with the way that editors work, >> > which is to identify and correct issues as they are found during a >> > review pass, whether those issues are formatting or content, or low >> > severity or high severity. Switching to a process with multiple edit >> > passes, or where every edit leads to an individually labelled commit, >> > would drastically increase the editing time and the IETF LLC has made >> > it clear that this would not be acceptable. The RPC plans to put out a >> > proposal for community discussion at IETF 123 Madrid on how it might >> > support authors who work in GitHub. >> >> First, breaking up edits between copy edit and formatting is >> orthogonal to GitHub, although they serve the same basic purpose, >> which is to make it easier for authors and the community to determine >> what has changed. >> >> Second, I am surprised to hear that you think this is prohibitive, >> because to a first order this separation is what happens when you make >> the first editorial pass on the markdown and then translate it to >> XML. There are of course some minor formatting changes that get made >> in markdown, but based on my experience backporting RPC changes into >> markdown I could at least live with that separation. I agree that >> individual commits would be prohibitive, though what *would* be >> valuable would be if the aforementioned markdown changes were >> presented as a PR so they could be reviewed and updated as necessary >> using our ordinary processes. >> >> On the bigger picture, whatever the RPC's current processes, standard >> practice in book publishing is to have copy-editing occur on >> un-typeset versions of the author's manuscript (e.g., a Word file) >> followed by typesetting of the final manuscript. This roughly >> corresponds to the content/formatting split that is discussed >> here. Can you say why you believe this would be prohibitive in this >> case? > I read what Jay wrote differently. He was stating that there is a request > that people tag PRs with different qualities like priority or formatting and > that these PRs be handled differently based on the tags, and THAT flow would > fly in the face of how what editors do today. Am I misreading what was > written?
That’s what was meant yes. Jay -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-direc...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
