Just using Pull Requests to track XEPs that are in a per-experimental phase sounds good to me. We are on Github after all and we should embrace it's features before we come up with some home brewed solution. I mean looking at the number of open PR it is basically already used as such.
2016-07-05 11:05 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net>: > Florian, > > On 5 July 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. >> >> > I sort of agree. I don't see the harm in forking the repository, and > working in "pull requests" (which are, after all, just branches). > > >> A while ago I suggested establishing an extra repo for incubating XEPs >> and updates to existing XEPs in xsf@. My vision was to make write access >> to that repo easily possible, to have it build via CI, and to publish it >> somewhere (e.g. xmpp.org/lab), with the hope that this will encourage >> collaboration, improve the quality of ProtoXEPs and kickstart >> experimental implementations. This idea was not received well for some >> reasons I frankly do not understand. We clearly need a place like that. >> > > I think that would be an admission of failure of what ought to be a really > simple process for authors. Write XEP. Publish. Rinse. Repeat. All the way > until Draft. > > I've no particular interest in improving the quality of ProtoXEPs - the > quality gate there is next to zero anyway (by intention). The quality gate > kicks in at Draft, and we should worry, if anything, about that Introducing > more roadblocks to get to Draft doesn't seem useful. > > Basically, your labs proposal ought to happen, but it ought to be the > Experimental state, not some new state beforehand. > > >> XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable. >> > > In this, we entirely agree. > > >> >> - Florian >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Standards mailing list >> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards >> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > _______________________________________________ > >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
