[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ohdf] Motion to request a GitHub TC repository for Specification Work Products
OK. Nothing I’d fall on my sword over. Time will tell. CSAF is a single spec with no associated software. So throwing administrivia in the one repo with the spec is fine. Yes you could argue cvrf is a separate spec but not really, it’s more documentation of a
historical artifact for CSAF. I may be wrong but I see OHDF having more than one specification work product as well as having software tools. If it is that complex, especially if it has software that you want to have releases for, then
I see separate repos being easier. But it’s certainly easier to have one repo if it really is all one ‘thing’. I’m fine with waiting to see what happens
-- Duncan Sparrell sFractal Consulting iPhone, iTypo, iApologize I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/ From:
Stefan Hagen <stefan@hagen.link> Thanks a lot, Duncan. My rationale on suggesting a single repo to start with and as baseline is twofold: First, In my experience splits cause complexity and are best avoided if no actual itch has to be scratched. - If and when the need arises, we can always add a specialized repo to the TC portfolio. The new "stuff" should provide already a good name postfix to "ohdf" because of the very reason it does not fit into the single repo. Second, In the repository planning I take on a systems perspective (looking from the end towards the beginning): Namely, the docs.oasis-open.org place offers the A_TC/A_SPEC/A_VERSION 3-level hierarchy and this hierarchy is where all our work products will end / fit in. As an example https://docs.oasis-open.org/csaf/ holds the work products from the CSAF TC as folders/directories: 1. csaf/v.2.0/ (for now providing CSAF v2.0) and
2. csaf-cvrf/v1.2/ (which provides "kind of CSAF" v1.2). In CSAF we profited IMO a lot from simplifying the work area by only having a single csaf GitHub TC repo. We split also in there by folders. Examples matching the two target work products named above: Every such folder can provide the needed supportive sub-ordering per folders like (from the CSAF v2.0 example): - comment_resolution (to progress after public reviews) - examples (examples for different aspects of the XSAF eco system) - json_schema (the machine readable JSON schema files being part of the spec) - prose (the spec in markdown format - source) - register (names at IANA) - submit (OS to ISO.) - test (holding test data and possibly test code supporting e.g. GitHub actions for CI/CD quality checks inside PRs) Keeping minutes, issues, peer-reviews, prose, schema files, test data etc. in a single place helps a lot to ease referencing and also minimizes the hassle contributors have to go through for providing input. One thing that in my experience is annoying for authors of even meeting minute drafts let alone spec / schema changes is that one can only add the GitHub contributors to that repo (CLA signed) to
pull requests instead of those members that regularly contribute enhancing comments. On the other hand, anyone worldwide (that has a GitHub account ) can simply add themselves as
reviewers to PRs and approve or comment any foo bar bar quux (if we keep the repository perms open and reasonable). Splitting the work places across multiple repos multiplies that cost in any case. All the best, Stefan. On Sat, Apr 15, 2023, at 16:17, duncan sfractal.com wrote:
Stefan Hagen, Emmetten, Nidwalden, Switzerland. orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4206-892X read: https://stefan-hagen.website write: stefan@hagen.link |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]