[CSSWG] Announcement: Spec issues are migrating to GitHub issues

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[CSSWG] Announcement: Spec issues are migrating to GitHub issues

Alan Stearns
Hey all,



The working group has decided to move spec issues and discussions to GitHub issues in our drafts repository.

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts

This is following a successful experiment in using GitHub for tracking Houdini issues that started last year [1]. You can watch the drafts repository if you’d like to see all the issue traffic via email, and/or subscribe or unsubscribe to individual issue threads. If you prefer, you can reply to these email notifications to post new comments in the issue threads - but if you do please cut out content you’re replying to. Threading of the conversation is handled by the GitHub UI, and long interleaved replies look redundant there.

GitHub issues will be tagged to associate them with their specification. So you’ll be able to filter issues in the GitHub UI to the specifications you’re interested in. You’ll also see whether particular issues are open or closed (with a changelist if the issue closure resulted in a spec change). I expect we’ll continue to experiment with other issue tracking affordances such as milestones.

All GitHub issue traffic for the drafts repository is now being archived on a w3c mailing list [2]. It’s not recommended that you subscribe to the archive list, as you cannot reply to these messages to join the conversation.

The www-style mailing list will gradually be reduced to announcements and general discussions. It will take some time to make the transition. Please do not be alarmed if a thread you start here gets moved to GitHub, or if you’re asked to move a conversation to GitHub.

Thanks,

Alan Stearns
CSSWG Co-Chair

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-houdini/2015Sep/0004.html
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-archive/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CSSWG] Announcement: Spec issues are migrating to GitHub issues

r12a
On 18/05/2016 17:18, Alan Stearns wrote:
> The www-style mailing list will gradually be reduced to announcements and general discussions. It will take some time to make the transition. Please do not be alarmed if a thread you start here gets moved to GitHub, or if you’re asked to move a conversation to GitHub.


hi Alan,

happy to see the move to github. I think it will help a lot.

I just raised an issue on the CSSWG github repo*, but i guess there's no
notification mechanism set up yet for interventions in the repo, because
i haven't seen one.

i'm assuming that at least minimal notifications will be sent to a
mailing list (such as new issue raised, issue closed), so that people
know to go subscribe themselves to things that interest them.  Which
list will that be?

cheers,
ri



* it's possible that you won't see that issue at the moment, since
github just suspended my account until i convince them that i'm a human.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CSSWG] Announcement: Spec issues are migrating to GitHub issues

Alan Stearns
On 5/18/16, 10:02 AM, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> wrote:



>On 18/05/2016 17:18, Alan Stearns wrote:
>> The www-style mailing list will gradually be reduced to announcements and general discussions. It will take some time to make the transition. Please do not be alarmed if a thread you start here gets moved to GitHub, or if you’re asked to move a conversation to GitHub.
>
>
>hi Alan,
>
>happy to see the move to github. I think it will help a lot.
>
>I just raised an issue on the CSSWG github repo*, but i guess there's no
>notification mechanism set up yet for interventions in the repo, because
>i haven't seen one.
>
>i'm assuming that at least minimal notifications will be sent to a
>mailing list (such as new issue raised, issue closed), so that people
>know to go subscribe themselves to things that interest them.  Which
>list will that be?

There was some talk of these notifications (issue open, issue close) but I haven’t seen that implemented by Houdini. Do you have that working for 118n?

Thanks,

Alan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CSSWG] Announcement: Spec issues are migrating to GitHub issues

r12a
On 18/05/2016 18:22, Alan Stearns wrote:
> There was some talk of these notifications (issue open, issue close) but I haven’t seen that implemented by Houdini. Do you have that working for 118n?

yes. In fact, you can tailor the types of events that trigger
notifications. I spoke with ChrisL this afternoon, so i think he knows
how to do it now.  I'm guessing that it's just a question of designating
a particular list.  (I was surprised that www-style wasn't the obvious
choice.)

ri


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CSSWG] Announcement: Spec issues are migrating to GitHub issues

Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com
In reply to this post by Alan Stearns
18.05.2016, 19:22, "Alan Stearns" <[hidden email]>:
> The working group has decided to move spec issues and discussions to GitHub issues in our drafts repository.
> The www-style mailing list will gradually be reduced to announcements and general discussions.

That's great. How to determine for sure whether to post something (e.g. a proposal of a new at-rule) here in the mailing list or as a GitHub issue?

What are general discussions exactly?

Thanks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CSSWG] Announcement: Spec issues are migrating to GitHub issues

Alan Stearns
In reply to this post by r12a
On 5/18/16, 10:26 AM, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> wrote:



>On 18/05/2016 18:22, Alan Stearns wrote:
>> There was some talk of these notifications (issue open, issue close) but I haven’t seen that implemented by Houdini. Do you have that working for 118n?
>
>yes. In fact, you can tailor the types of events that trigger
>notifications. I spoke with ChrisL this afternoon, so i think he knows
>how to do it now.  I'm guessing that it's just a question of designating
>a particular list.  (I was surprised that www-style wasn't the obvious
>choice.)

I think that www-style is the obvious choice. Interested people are already subscribed to this list, so it will be the best place to inform people of new issues and/or decisions on issues.

Thanks,

Alan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CSSWG] Announcement: Spec issues are migrating to GitHub issues

Alan Stearns
In reply to this post by Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com
On 5/18/16, 10:28 AM, "Marat Tanalin" <[hidden email]> wrote:



>18.05.2016, 19:22, "Alan Stearns" <[hidden email]>:
>> The working group has decided to move spec issues and discussions to GitHub issues in our drafts repository.
>> The www-style mailing list will gradually be reduced to announcements and general discussions.
>
>That's great. How to determine for sure whether to post something (e.g. a proposal of a new at-rule) here in the mailing list or as a GitHub issue?
>
>What are general discussions exactly?

If the discussion might result in a change to a CSS specification, it should be a GitHub issue. A speculative proposal for a new @rule should be a GitHub issue. We can discuss whether it should be added to a spec there, and close the issue if we choose not to add the @rule at this time. Over time, we’ll have a searchable archive of closed issues that can be re-opened as new data warrants.

Anything else can continue to be discussed on the mailing list. But if a mailing list discussion veers towards spec changes, it will move to GitHub.

Thanks,

Alan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CSSWG] Announcement: Spec issues are migrating to GitHub issues

Chris Lilley
In reply to this post by Alan Stearns



On 16/05/18 19:22, Alan Stearns wrote:
There was some talk of these notifications (issue open, issue close) but I haven’t seen that implemented by Houdini. Do you have that working for 118n?

I added them to Houdini today, at the same time as I did for CSS.
-- 
Chris Lilley
@svgeesus
Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CSSWG] Announcement: Spec issues are migrating to GitHub issues

Sebastian Zartner-3
On 18 May 2016 at 19:53, Chris Lilley <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 16/05/18 19:22, Alan Stearns wrote:
There was some talk of these notifications (issue open, issue close) but I haven’t seen that implemented by Houdini. Do you have that working for 118n?

I added them to Houdini today, at the same time as I did for CSS.

I assume the issue titles should contain the spec. tags like we used to do here on the mailing list, right?
Furthermore, what's the strategy for replying to an existing mailing list thread? Should that discussions be ported to/continued on GitHub?
For posting to the mailing list we have https://www.w3.org/Mail/ describing the rules to follow. What are the guidelines for commenting on GitHub?

Sebastian

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CSSWG] Announcement: Spec issues are migrating to GitHub issues

fantasai
On 05/19/2016 05:54 AM, Sebastian Zartner wrote:

> On 18 May 2016 at 19:53, Chris Lilley <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     On 16/05/18 19:22, Alan Stearns wrote:
>>     There was some talk of these notifications (issue open, issue close) but I haven’t seen that implemented by Houdini. Do you have that working for 118n?
>>
>     I added them to Houdini today, at the same time as I did for CSS.
>
>
> I assume the issue titles should contain the spec. tags like we used to do here on the mailing list, right?
> Furthermore, what's the strategy for replying to an existing mailing list thread? Should that discussions be ported
> to/continued on GitHub?
> For posting to the mailing list we have https://www.w3.org/Mail/ describing the rules to follow. What are the guidelines for
> commenting on GitHub?

I'm leaning towards just concluding existing threads on the ML.
Moving discussions is not great.

~fantasai

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CSSWG] Announcement: Spec issues are migrating to GitHub issues

Tab Atkins Jr.
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:08 PM, fantasai <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 05/19/2016 05:54 AM, Sebastian Zartner wrote:
>>
>> On 18 May 2016 at 19:53, Chris Lilley <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 16/05/18 19:22, Alan Stearns wrote:
>>>
>>>     There was some talk of these notifications (issue open, issue close)
>>> but I haven’t seen that implemented by Houdini. Do you have that working for
>>> 118n?
>>>
>>     I added them to Houdini today, at the same time as I did for CSS.
>>
>>
>> I assume the issue titles should contain the spec. tags like we used to do
>> here on the mailing list, right?
>> Furthermore, what's the strategy for replying to an existing mailing list
>> thread? Should that discussions be ported
>> to/continued on GitHub?
>> For posting to the mailing list we have https://www.w3.org/Mail/
>> describing the rules to follow. What are the guidelines for
>> commenting on GitHub?
>
>
> I'm leaning towards just concluding existing threads on the ML.
> Moving discussions is not great.

Agree. We can shift *new* conversations that are accidentally started
here, but older convos are less disruptive if we just let them peter
out here.

Now we need to update the spec boilerplate to stop telling people to
email www-style...

~TJ