Dear David
I agree with your proposals to stop new trac tickets quite soon and to put the
conformance doc in the same git repository as the conventions doc.
Earlier and at the CF meeting last month I argued in favour of continuing with
trac for the moment, because I think it's important that potential contributors
to the conventions are not deterred from contributing. There are some to whom
the use of GitHub may seem a formidable barrier. (We know that there are others
who find that surprising, because they are familiar with GitHub and regard trac
as impenetrable. This legitimate difference of views reflects people's ways of
thinking and experience, I expect.) To help people start using GitHub, we will
have the guidelines, whose development Dave has been leading.
This is now the time and opportunity for anyone in the CF community to say if
they are concerned about the prospect of being required to use GitHub in the
near future to make proposals for changes to the conventions. (The use of the
email list for discussion and standard name proposals will continue.)
Best wishes
Jonathan
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:50:21AM -0700, David Hassell wrote:
> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:50:21 -0700
> From: David Hassell <notifications at github.com>
> To: cf-convention/cf-conventions <cf-conventions at noreply.github.com>
> Cc: Subscribed <subscribed at noreply.github.com>
> Subject: Re: [cf-convention/cf-conventions] GitHub Contribution Guidelines
> (#130)
>
> 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
Received on Mon Jul 16 2018 - 02:28:14 BST
