update rules for github #62
Conversation
rules.md
Outdated
| @@ -5,19 +5,19 @@ title: Rules | |||
|
|
|||
| # Rules for CF Conventions Changes | |||
|
|
|||
| <p>New proposals are to be made on trac using the template, including verbatim changes proposed to the text of standard document and the conformance document.</p> | |||
| <p>New proposals are to be made on trac or github using the template, including verbatim changes proposed to the text of standard document and the conformance document.</p> | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for this, Dave.
I'm not sure about saying "Trac or github" throughout. Is this a temporary measure to be changed to "github" later, or a long term change? Either way, I don't think that we want to be suggesting that new Trac tickets are acceptable. Perhaps a one-off mention that prior to v1.8, new proposals occurred on Trac, and any ongoing discussions there will be concluded according to the rules described at v1.7 (This means we would have to put a version number into this document of course: "Rules for Conventions Changes version 1.8", but I can't see any problem in that) Then no more mention of Trac would be needed.
I've just assumed that the move to github will coincide with a new version of CF. Has that been suggested before? It seems like a good idea to me. I would have no problem in making a CF-1.8 that had geometries, typos and github infrastructure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Dear David
I don't think that discontinuing Trac from 1.8 onwards has yet been proposed. It could be proposed along with the rules for using GitHub, although it's not necessarily related. It could be left so we can see how we go - in fact, I would advocate that.
I think there's a potential for confusion with these comments on pull requests, which are distinct from comments in issues, as already discussed. That must make it quite hard to read the history of the discussion, in order to follow how decisions are reached, doesn't it?
Jonathan
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Dear David and Jonathan,
As I said in the last bullet of cf-convention/cf-conventions#130
Regarding a hybrid approach of GitHub and trac, it seems that part of that ship sailed when we started managing the text in GitHub. That said, I see no reason not to allow changes to be vetted in trac until we have enough success using GitHub to track modifications that the community is ready to leave trac behind. We are already referencing trac from GitHub. Opening the option to not use Trac seams like the next step to me.
If we need to debate that point, please do it in cf-convention/cf-conventions#130. Debate of language is appropriate here, but substance needs to be discussed on more general terms in the issue.
-- side note on process, I also pushed to have substantive comments on a pull request in my personal fork https://github.com/dblodgett-usgs/cf-conventions/pull/10 expressed in summary in cf-convention/cf-conventions#130 We need to be careful that we separate content debate (issues) from syntax review (pull requests) until the community becomes comfortable enough to negotiate the technology and have content debates in pull request form.
Best
- Dave
This pull request is intimately related to: cf-convention/cf-conventions#134 before proceeding with any review of this PR, a thorough understanding of that one as well as cf-convention/cf-conventions#130 is required.