New publication workflow: Echidna 1.2.0, Specberus 1.1.0

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

New publication workflow: Echidna 1.2.0, Specberus 1.1.0

Antonio Olmo Titos

Hello, there.

We just deployed updated versions of the software in labs.w3.org:

    • Echidna 1.2.0 — changelog: https://github.com/w3c/echidna/compare/v1.1.1...v1.2.0
    • Specberus 1.1.0 — changelog: https://github.com/w3c/specberus/compare/v1.0.3...v1.1.0

The main reason for this release were a couple of important bugfixes:

    • Docs in which, by mistake, the URL of "this" version was equal to the URL of the "previous" version slipped through the system, causing inconsistencies — https://github.com/w3c/specberus/issues/29
    • Binary files weren't downloaded properly, so images weren't shown OK in published docs — https://github.com/w3c/echidna/issues/137

But there were other changes in the last days: corrections in documentation (README); tweaks in the way the API returns info about publication jobs [ https://github.com/w3c/echidna/issues/126 ]; from now on, when attempts to publish fail, the versions of the software will be shown in the e-mail that is sent [ https://github.com/w3c/echidna/issues/120 ]; both HTTP and HTTPS are now allowed when publishing, regardless of what protocol was specified when the token was registered; home-brewed "insafe" [ https://github.com/w3c/insafe ] replaced "safe-url-input-checker"...

Happy publishing :)

-- 
Antonio Olmo Titos
  web developer, W3C
  [hidden email]
  http://w3.org/People/Antonio
  +81 335162504


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New publication workflow: Echidna 1.2.0, Specberus 1.1.0

Steve Faulkner-2
Hi, it's my understanding that the autopublishing system does not currently support note track documents. If so is it possible to make it support them?


On 12 April 2015 at 17:23, Antonio Olmo Titos <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello, there.

We just deployed updated versions of the software in labs.w3.org:

    • Echidna 1.2.0 — changelog: https://github.com/w3c/echidna/compare/v1.1.1...v1.2.0
    • Specberus 1.1.0 — changelog: https://github.com/w3c/specberus/compare/v1.0.3...v1.1.0

The main reason for this release were a couple of important bugfixes:

    • Docs in which, by mistake, the URL of "this" version was equal to the URL of the "previous" version slipped through the system, causing inconsistencies — https://github.com/w3c/specberus/issues/29
    • Binary files weren't downloaded properly, so images weren't shown OK in published docs — https://github.com/w3c/echidna/issues/137

But there were other changes in the last days: corrections in documentation (README); tweaks in the way the API returns info about publication jobs [ https://github.com/w3c/echidna/issues/126 ]; from now on, when attempts to publish fail, the versions of the software will be shown in the e-mail that is sent [ https://github.com/w3c/echidna/issues/120 ]; both HTTP and HTTPS are now allowed when publishing, regardless of what protocol was specified when the token was registered; home-brewed "insafe" [ https://github.com/w3c/insafe ] replaced "safe-url-input-checker"...

Happy publishing :)

-- 
Antonio Olmo Titos
  web developer, W3C
  [hidden email]
  http://w3.org/People/Antonio
  <a href="tel:%2B81%20335162504" value="+81335162504" target="_blank">+81 335162504



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New publication workflow: Echidna 1.2.0, Specberus 1.1.0

Marcos Caceres-4



On June 1, 2015 at 6:47:33 AM, Steve Faulkner ([hidden email]) wrote:
> Hi, it's my understanding that the autopublishing system does not currently
> support note track documents. If so is it possible to make it support them?

Shouldn't a Note be the final "final state" for a document? I.e., every document is a working draft until it finally becomes a Note/REC/Whatever. If so, then your document could be auto published as a working draft - but just include some text in the status saying that "this is going to be a W3C Note at some point". 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New publication workflow: Echidna 1.2.0, Specberus 1.1.0

Steve Faulkner-2

On 1 June 2015 at 17:49, Marcos Caceres <[hidden email]> wrote:
Shouldn't a Note be the final "final state" for a document? I.e., every document is a working draft until it finally becomes a Note/REC/Whatever. If so, then your document could be auto published as a working draft - but just include some text in the status saying that "this is going to be a W3C Note at some point". 

that's right, but I think its the boiler plate that needs to be modified to reflect the note track status.
so maybe need a flag to set the boilerplate to note/rec track?


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New publication workflow: Echidna 1.2.0, Specberus 1.1.0

Marcos Caceres-4



On June 1, 2015 at 1:04:21 PM, Steve Faulkner ([hidden email]) wrote:

> On 1 June 2015 at 17:49, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>  
> > Shouldn't a Note be the final "final state" for a document? I.e., every
> > document is a working draft until it finally becomes a Note/REC/Whatever.
> > If so, then your document could be auto published as a working draft - but
> > just include some text in the status saying that "this is going to be a W3C
> > Note at some point".
>  
>  
> that's right, but I think its the boiler plate that needs to be modified to
> reflect the note track status.
> so maybe need a flag to set the boilerplate to note/rec track?

Ok, is this a ReSpec doc? Can you send me a link? 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New publication workflow: Echidna 1.2.0, Specberus 1.1.0

Steve Faulkner-2

On 1 June 2015 at 18:15, Marcos Caceres <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ok, is this a ReSpec doc? Can you send me a link? 

http://w3c.github.io/aria-in-html/

note: there is also the complication of it being jointly published by 2 working groups, I don't know if that matters?

thanks!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New publication workflow: Echidna 1.2.0, Specberus 1.1.0

Antonio Olmo Titos

On 02/06/15 Steve wrote:
> http://w3c.github.io/aria-in-html/
> note: there is also the complication of it being jointly published by
> 2 working groups, I don't know if that matters?
> thanks!

Hi, Steve and Marcos

The automatic publication system (Echidna) supports only ordinary WDs at
the moment. We have discussed the need  to extend support for other
types of specs, but we are not ready yet; there are quite a few rough
edges with WDs [1; reference for the team].

One of those edges is joint publication — I'm afraid the system can't
handle "special cases" like those yet.

The pubrules checker (Specberus) [2], on the other hand, understands
other types of documents. I just used it to check your WG-NOTE, and it
found only one error in it [3]. (Specberus expects the PP paragraph to
contain "This document is informative only. " [4]. This might be a bug
in the way Specberus detects the "informative-only" nature of specs,
though. There are discussions around that [5].)

(Needless to say, you are more than welcome to fork Echidna and
contribute starting to add support for other types of specs, or special
cases like joint publication... O:)

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/w3t-sys/2015MarApr/thread.html#msg313
[2] https://labs.w3.org/pubrules/
[3]
https://labs.w3.org/pubrules/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.w3.org%2Fspec-generator%2F%3Ftype%3Drespec%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Faria-in-html%2F%3FspecStatus%3DWG-NOTE%3BshortName%3Daria-in-html&profile=WG-NOTE&validation=simple-validation&noRecTrack=false&informativeOnly=true&echidnaReady=false&patentPolicy=pp2004&processDocument=2014
[4] https://github.com/w3c/specberus/blob/master/lib/rules/sotd/pp.js#L18
[5] https://github.com/w3c/specberus/issues/143

--
Antonio Olmo Titos
   web developer, W3C
   [hidden email]
   http://w3.org/People/Antonio
   +81 335162504