Is it possible to have an "Edit on GitHub" or "Propose A Change" link to specs that points to a .bs file?

[praveenpuglia]

Wondering if it's possible to add a link to the .bs file that generates the Spec in the spec itself. This will help in quickly editing sentences and send PRs.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Working Group just discussed linking the bs sources.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<heycam> Topic: linking the bs sources
<heycam> github: https://github.com//issues/2472
<heycam> chris_: this is for people proposing wording changes
<heycam> ... some people propose changes to generated files
<heycam> ... I was talking to this guy, asking how can we do it, so we can find where the bs file
<heycam> ... from the spec
<heycam> ... we've already got an ED, with a bs link
<heycam> ... I want to say "right here, this wording, I want to find that text in the bs file"
<heycam> TabAtkins: that's substantially more difficult
<heycam> ... I can do the first part
<heycam> ... second part is way harder
<heycam> florian: first part, I'm not sure it's a good idea
<heycam> ... makes it easier to propose trivial fixes
<heycam> ... but also easier for PRs when they should be filing issues, about more complicated problems
<heycam> rachelandrew: some people want to up the github contributions
<heycam> ... and file lots of trivial fixes
<fantasai> +1 to what Florian said
<heycam> tantek: as long as this goes through the W3C IPR thing
<heycam> ... that's actually a win
<heycam> iank_: for editorial changes it's non IPR required
<heycam> tantek: but if that's the default, then serious folks will think, no problem
<heycam> ... might be a barrier to these troublesome fixes
<heycam> chris_: I agree we do want to encourage issues for discussion
<heycam> ... we can just reply with that
<heycam> tantek: if someone shows up proposing new text, it's someone we can train to be a new editor!
<heycam> florian: sometimes
<heycam> chris_: they're already doing that, but just on a generated file
<heycam> fantasai: I think we should remove the generated files from the repo
<heycam> chris_: they're mostly gone, but sometimes pop up
<heycam> leaverou: don't we have a .gitignore in the repo?
<heycam> TabAtkins: we do, but if it got manually added, it will still be there
<heycam> chris_: so it's easy to do the straightforward thing?
<heycam> fantasai: I don't think it makes that big of a difference
<heycam> ... I'm concerned with florian's comment
<heycam> ... landing on a page to contribute a page without any context, what our processes are
<heycam> tantek: they're already doing that but against the generated versions
<heycam> fantasai: things on Bert's old preprocessor
<heycam> chris_: Fonts and Colors 3
<heycam> florian: CSS 2
<heycam> astearns: there are some FX specs too
<heycam> fantasai: we should just delete them and solve them that way
<heycam> tantek: does FX still exist?
<heycam> florian: as a repo, yes
<heycam> tantek: we can assimilate it?
<heycam> Rossen: we already have
<heycam> plinss: Shaders and Compositing 2 are the only two in there with generated files checked in
<heycam> TabAtkins: I can add some default boilerplate, with some macros that point to a new URL
<heycam> florian: weren't we saying that if the generated specs aren't in the repo we don't need that link?
<heycam> TabAtkins: no
<heycam> florian: because the purpose of that link is to avoid changing the output, and if the output isn't there, it's fine?
<heycam> TabAtkins: one benefit is that. another benefit is to encourage small changes / typo fixes more easily
<heycam> ... less friction for typo PRs the better
<heycam> florian: we can try
<heycam> Rossen: how many non trivial PRs will we get?
<heycam> [some discussion about WHATWG contribution]
<heycam> Rossen: sounds like Tab can add a link to change the original source
<heycam> fantasai: I would prefer not to have a link without context to what editing the spec means
<heycam> Rossen: how to add that info?
<heycam> fantasai: we can do that if we want to, ways we can do it, but it's not a link to "here edit this spec"
<heycam> TabAtkins: I would like to try this out without assuming people will make substantive changes without discussion
<heycam> Rossen: let's roll it out to a couple of specs
<heycam> TabAtkins: I'll do it for all specs
<heycam> myles: let's just try it, get more engagement
<heycam> fantasai: no reason to do a subset
<heycam> Rossen: ok then
<heycam> fantasai: but would like to note the documentation sucks on how the WG operates
<heycam> florian: when you open a PR you get some information right?
<heycam> ... there's on old blog that's a bit outdated
<heycam> chris_: I know on GitHub you can have issue templates. can we do that for PRs?
<heycam> TabAtkins: yes
<TabAtkins> `"!Edit This Spec": "https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/master/[VSHORTNAME]/Overview.bs"`
<heycam> florian: for quick fix, this is welcome, if substantial, don't start with a PR
<heycam> tantek: I've seen things about code of conduct etc. agreements, so presumably we can do this
<fantasai> https://github.com//pull/2320
<heycam> rachelandrew: I can write some text that's easy to read about contributions if that's helpful
<heycam> fantasai: I would like this ^ fixed up and merged in ebfore doing this
<heycam> florian: yes
<heycam> s/ebfore/before/
<heycam> ACTION: Tab to add an "Edit this spec" link to specs, once #2320 has been fixed

[fantasai]

We need to wrap up #2320 first but should be doable.

[tabatkins]

Already done, actually, I'd just accidentally only put it in the non-ED defaults. Fixed now: speced/bikeshed@96e00f8