On 05.07.2016 10:56, Ashley Ward wrote: > >> On 5 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Florian Schmaus <f...@geekplace.eu> wrote: >> >> On 05.07.2016 10:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: >>> Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200 >>> Florian Schmaus <f...@geekplace.eu> wrote: >>> >>>> I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an important >>>> one like MIX, would be more open. >>> >>> For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can keep >>> development there and tag stable version. >> >> So far, the XSF repo is *only* used for submitted XEPs, everything in >> inbox/ is a ProtoXEPs and XEPs with numbers follow the standards track. >> Changes are only made by the XSF Editor Team. It is not used for active >> development of those XEPs, and I think it should be that way. > > For a while it’s been my vision that each XEP should have its own repo. The > authors could then ‘own’ their own XEP repo - push to development branches, > accept updates (to draft XEPs), etc. This would need a much higher level of > automation than we have now though, and I just don’t have the bandwidth to do > anything on it at the moment unfortunately.
To be frank, I think the one-repo-per-XEP approach is a terrible idea. I see not a single major advantage, but it would require and enormous maintenance and setup effort. Simply have a few people which review PRs against the repo for some simple constraints, e.g. that they don't mess with other peoples XEPs, and then merge them (note that this is basically the same approach the xsf/xeps repo uses). It would be possible to setup something like this in 30 minutes. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
