-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 142
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Uploading a new version of RFC6265bis. #1031
Comments
That seems to be related to @martinthomson 's magic I'm not familiar with. Did you try submitting directly through the IETF web page? |
I can do it manually, I'm sure; I just don't want to screw things up if the repo tries to resubmit on my behalf based on that tag. |
The datatracker submission API requires not only that the email address you report here matches an active account (reasonable), but that the email is the primary email address on the account. Note however that the email address in the document itself does not need to match this email address. Indeed, you could claim my email address here and it would probably work fine (please don't, though I'm considering doing that just so that I stop getting questions about this). I get the email address from the annotations on the tag. So you can override the tag email address as I do in QUIC as a workaround. This is a point of frustration for me. The trac issue has been open for ages, blocked on a point of contention. |
Poked at it manually, and it looks like it went through successfully. I'll try to make sure I use |
To close the loop on this: I set my email address to one matching my IETF account in the local repo (via |
https://circleci.com/gh/httpwg/http-extensions/2785?utm_campaign=vcs-integration-link&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github-build-link shows that uploading a new -04 draft of RFC6265bis failed, possibly because I used the wrong email address when committing the new tag.
Can I delete and recreate the tag from the right account?
@reschke, @mnot: can one of you help me out? The docs are not exactly extensive... :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: