On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 12:57 AM Martin J. Dürst <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Eric, others, > > Sorry to comment on a very old thread. > > On 2025-09-18 11:43, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 7:27 PM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> I ask because I suck at commenting in PRs for documents, and when I do > so, > >> I get wildly different advice from the authors about the proper way to > >> comment in a PR. It would be good if the RPC could say to authors ahead > of > >> time how the authors should interact with the PR (just as they are told > how > >> to respond to AUTH48 email). > >> > > > > Well, hopefully this situation is clearer because the space of reasonable > > comments is rather smaller, as the authors should only be commenting on > > text the RPC has changed, and so mostly you should either be saying > "Please > > revert this change" or "Here is yet another alternate piece of text". > > For simple reversal or approval, and for longer actual comments (e.g. > "Thanks for catching this." or "Don't forget to apply this change > throughout the document." or so), that works fine. > > > Just to be clear, if the authors want to make unsolicited changes beyond > > what the RPC changed, they should be generating their own PRs, not making > > those changes to the RPC's PR. > > If they want to make changes to other pieces of the document (e.g. to > address issues that haven't been dealt with before), that makes sense. > > But for tweaks to the edits from the RPC, commits on top of the RPC's > commits would make the most sense. The way to deal with this is GitHub suggestions. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
