[Members] XEP maintenance

Steffen Larsen zooldk at gmail.com
Wed Feb 17 13:25:23 CST 2010


Hi,

That was actually the same idea I had when I wrote the email around  
our wiki.. To use Crucible and JIRA.. Its not complicated at all.. I  
use it every day, but I think that new user will find it easy as well.
Code reviews are really good, especially when we can integrate it in  
our process of a XEP life-cycle. Its easier to assign  people to  
specific XEPs and put impediments etc. on the issues.

I know its all about the process.. But good software to support the  
process is important too. :-)

-Just my 5 cent!

/Steffen



On Feb 17, 2010, at 7:51 PM, bear wrote:

> are you interested in trying to use something like Crucible (an
> Atlassian product that enables code reviews) for this?
>
> I thought about it last night - each XEP would be in the code
> repository and edits would get commited and then the reviewers would
> use Crucible to markup and comment on the changes - once approved the
> XEP would then be tagged to represent the current version.
>
> too complex?
> am I sniffing my cat's litter box and my brain is fried?
> too simple?
>
>
> thanks,
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 13:42, Peter Saint-Andre  
> <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> One of my long-time responsibilities has been maintenance of existing
>> XEPs (and schemas and registries and so on). This takes a lot of my
>> time, and I will soon have a lot less time because I have been named
>> Applications Area Director (with XSF member Alexey Melnikov) at the
>> IETF. Therefore I think we need a better process for XEP revisions.  
>> And
>> by "better" I mean something other than "stpeter will fix the spec".
>>
>> Currently my process is that I print out a XEP, mark it up on  
>> paper, and
>> key in edits. This worked fine in the old days but now we have a  
>> lot of
>> specs, so I simply don't have time to make all the edits myself. We
>> could use the technical review team to review specs in more detail  
>> (as
>> we've started to do with XEP-0045), but I think we'll need more  
>> people
>> to complete the edits in the XEP files themselves. This means we'll  
>> need
>> a real style guide and some principles of protocol design and a  
>> better
>> editorial team and even more reviews because until now everyone has
>> mostly trusted me to do the right thing (fix up language issues,  
>> correct
>> examples and schemas, know when to bump namespace versions, etc.  
>> etc.)
>> with oversight from the Council and good insight into the actual  
>> changes
>> I've made via source control diffs.
>>
>> Anyway, I just wanted to raise the issue for now. As a first step  
>> I'll
>> call a meeting of the technical review team (which currently doesn't
>> even have a team lead) so that we can discuss this more seriously.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> --
>> Peter Saint-Andre
>> https://stpeter.im/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Bear
>
> bear42 at gmail.com (xmpp, email)
> bear at code-bear.com (xmpp, email)
> http://code-bear.com/bearlog (weblog)
>
> PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111  D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1923 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20100217/a5789835/attachment.bin>


More information about the Members mailing list