Prepare v1.0.2 release

[bwiernik]

@denismaier and I have checked the spec against the schema, and I think all of the new variables/types/terms and other behavior changes have been accounted for. I also re-checked through the 1.0.2 schema and fixed a few bugs there. I think we could release the spec at this point and then continue to make additional behavior clarifications in outstanding issues as needed. We could then make a formal announcement that CSL 1.0.2 is ready for production use.

There are 2 open PRs tagged 1.0.2. We can probably merge them this week before a release?

Two points to discuss:

1. Regarding versioning, @rmzelle suggested that we get a DOI for the specificiation from Zenodo. We can get a separate DOI for v1.0.1, v1.0.2, etc. These could then be automatically archived with revision numbers as we make additional clarifications in the spec.
2. Regarding contributorship listing, @rmzelle suggested something similar to https://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/, listing the principal authors with additional contributors listed subsequently. Does that sound okay to everyone, and are folks okay with their listing? Are there other folks that should be named in either category? (A motivation for me asking this question is that I am preparing my tenure application package and need to know how to indicate my CSL contributions.)

[denismaier]

1 & 2 look good to me.

One question regarding this:

We could then make a formal announcement that CSL 1.0.2 is ready for production use.

What's the workflow for adding full support for the improvements in 1.0.2? I don't think we have to change anything in existing styles, but we'll need to add the new terms to the locales. How is that going to happen? Will we just add them to a couple of locales, and people will start translating from there?

[rmzelle]

we'll need to add the new terms to the locales. How is that going to happen? Will we just add them to a couple of locales, and people will start translating from there?

For prior releases, I think I populated all locale files with English translations. Our CI doesn't perform any checks on what subselection of allowable terms are defined in the locale files, and we also don't periodically standardize the formatting (like indenting) like we do with styles. So it's generally best to provide a clear template from which translators can work from.

[rmzelle]

(and because of this, in at least one of the prior transitions (1.0-to-1.0.1?), I used XSLT to transfer all existing translations to a newly prepared en-US template, to standardize the formatting, order, and selection of translated terms:

citation-style-language/locales@0374188
)

[bwiernik]

@rmzelle @adam3smith Could we maybe schedule a call to discuss the steps needed for the 1.0.2 transition on the styles repo?

[bdarcus]

2. Regarding contributorship listing, @rmzelle suggested something similar to https://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/, listing the principal authors with additional contributors listed subsequently. Does that sound okay to everyone, and are folks okay with their listing?

On this, fine by me.

Good luck with tenure!

[bwiernik]

Okay, I've resolved the open PRs. We ready to merge this @bdarcus @denismaier ?

The next step, @rmzelle and @adam3smith, would be to make branches on the styles and locales repos and populate the new terms into the locale files. Rintze, do you have a script you used for the 1.0.1 update?

[rmzelle]

The next step, @rmzelle and @adam3smith, would be to make branches on the styles and locales repos and populate the new terms into the locale files. Rintze, do you have a script you used for the 1.0.1 update?

I think I used https://github.com/citation-style-language/utilities/blob/master/update-locales-1.0-to-1.0.1.py and https://github.com/citation-style-language/utilities/blob/master/update-locales-1.0-to-1.0.1.xsl.

For the "styles" and "locales" repos, it would be good to first switch both of them to GitHub Actions, make sure the "v1.0.1" branches are populated. Then manually create "v1.0.2" branches off "master", and update the GitHub Actions to push to those.

(I don't think https://formatter.citationstyles.org/ needs any changes for 1.0.2, and https://validator.citationstyles.org/ just needs to be pointed to the new schema)

[denismaier]

Okay, I've resolved the open PRs. We ready to merge this @bdarcus @denismaier ?

I'd think so, yes. I'm just a bit confused about the current status of the branches. E.g., we have master, 1.0.1 and release-102. How does our branching strategy look here?

[bwiernik]

release-102 is just the PR branch. It will merge into master.

[denismaier]

Sorry, I've just realized that I've never appproved these changes.

The DOI question is still up to discussion, right? Generally, I think that would be a good idea.