Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Is it possible to have an "Edit on GitHub" or "Propose A Change" link to specs that points to a .bs file? #2472
The Working Group just discussed
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
<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> ACTION: Tab to add an "Edit this spec" link to specs, once #2320 has been fixed