Folks, please take generic discussion to the tools list. [1] That's where it'll have some effect.
If you're only talking about what the oauth wg ought do that's fine, but this reads as more generic. Thanks, S. [1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss On 05/16/2013 09:44 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote: > I am by no means suggesting IETF to use Vim/emacs. That is counter > productive. I was merely pointing out that one has to decide the diff > policy wisely. > > I like XMLMind's XML2RFC. Too bad it became commercial product only. > > Intelligent diffs would work fine. However, there have been push back to > that since that made it difficult for the users that just look at the web. > > In IETF, we should take the rfcdiff, IMHO, so whitespace changes in XML > should not be an issue. > > Nat > > 2013/05/15 22:11、"Richer, Justin P." <jric...@mitre.org> のメッセージ: > > I have already been using an approach like this for all of the drafts that > I edit, most notably the DynReg WG document and both the Introspection and > Chaining individual submissions. I run everything through my GitHub > repository here: > > https://github.com/jricher/oauth-spec/ > > I use the issue tracker there to note down things that come up in the WG > conversations on the list, so that when I actually do get to go edit > things, I don't forget anything. Once or twice, I have gotten issues > submitted directly to github, but the actual conversation around any real > changes (beyond typos) always comes back to the list. I do think it would > be worthwhile to connect the mailing list to the notifications of the > tracker for official documents. It would be fairly easy to set up a GitHub > organization that's backed by the mailing list's address for notifications, > and I think other development platforms have similar capabilities. > > However, I completely disagree with ODIF's decision regarding editing > tools. I've made some edits to the OIDF specs myself, and I find the "plain > text editor" rule to be a draconian overreaction that makes creating good > edits tedious, slow, and error-prone. In my personal experience, good tools > like XML Mind's XML2RFC plugin are profoundly useful, and the formatting > artifacts they create are minimal and easily ignored. The diffs that are > tracked in Git are *far* from useless, and if you ask me, if you want to do > a *real* diff on these documents you'd use the rfcdiff anyway, which > ignores the XML formatting changes and focuses on the actual content. It's > not perfect either, but it's far from useless. > > -- Justin > > > > On May 13, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I am probably biased since I am the one who introduced ticket driven > version control to OIDF but it proved to be very valuable especially for > transparency purposes. Each changes are linked to the ticket so it is easy > to see why that change was made. > > As to the comments v.s. mailing list relationship is concerned, I think it > is possible to forward all the comments to the list, and in case of IETF, > it should do so. > > One feedback on the experience we had at OIDF is that XML Editing tools > changes all sort of formatting making the diff at bitbucket useless. So, we > had to resort to emacs/vim/ etc. > > my 2c. > > Nat Sakimura > > > > > 2013/5/13 Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> > >> >> Hiya, >> >> On 05/13/2013 09:04 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> the OpenID Connect had gained some experience with using version control >> systems >>> for editing specifications (and the use of issue trackers), see >>> http://openid.bitbucket.org/. Based on a recent discussion in the IETF >> (among >>> the working group chairs) I am wondering what your experience is with >> those >>> tools and whether you see value in using these tools for document >> editing in the >>> OAuth working group. >> >> Sounds like a fine plan if the wg want to try it. Only thing I'd >> note is that it means editors need to be *very* careful to bring >> discussion back to the wg list when that's needed, since you will >> likely get comments in the version control environment that are >> not cc'd to the wg list. (The IETF will be considering generic >> solutions for that, if you're interested get involved with the >> tools team.) In turn, I suspect that means that wg chairs need >> to make sure there's an editor who really gets when a change needs >> to be discussed on the list and when its ok to just fix a typo. >> >> The httpbis wg have some experience doing this btw and have hit >> that specific issue of comments being made on github but not the >> list. There's a recent thread [1] that ends with good advice from >> the wg chair. >> >> And in case someone asks, reasons why we need the wg list cc'd >> include open-ness and to be clear as to what's an IETF >> contribution. There're probably more but these are enough;-) >> >> Cheers, >> S. >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013AprJun/0334.html >> >> >> >>> Ciao >>> Hannes >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > Chairman, OpenID Foundation > http://nat.sakimura.org/ > @_nat_en > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
