[Standards] MIX progress

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Tue Jul 5 09:13:25 UTC 2016


Just using Pull Requests to track XEPs that are in a per-experimental phase
sounds good to me. We are on Github after all and we should embrace it's
features before we come up with some home brewed solution. I mean looking
at the number of open PR it is basically already used as such.

2016-07-05 11:05 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:

> Florian,
>
> On 5 July 2016 at 09:51, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
>
>> On 05.07.2016 10:08, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
>> > Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:55:53 +0200
>> > Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'd also welcome if XEP development, especially for such an important
>> >> one like MIX, would be more open.
>> >
>> > For the record, we already have github XSF repo for that. We can keep
>> > development there and tag stable version.
>>
>> So far, the XSF repo is *only* used for submitted XEPs, everything in
>> inbox/ is a ProtoXEPs and XEPs with numbers follow the standards track.
>> Changes are only made by the XSF Editor Team. It is not used for active
>> development of those XEPs, and I think it should be that way.
>>
>>
> I sort of agree. I don't see the harm in forking the repository, and
> working in "pull requests" (which are, after all, just branches).
>
>
>> A while ago I suggested establishing an extra repo for incubating XEPs
>> and updates to existing XEPs in xsf at . My vision was to make write access
>> to that repo easily possible, to have it build via CI, and to publish it
>> somewhere (e.g. xmpp.org/lab), with the hope that this will encourage
>> collaboration, improve the quality of ProtoXEPs and kickstart
>> experimental implementations. This idea was not received well for some
>> reasons I frankly do not understand. We clearly need a place like that.
>>
>
> I think that would be an admission of failure of what ought to be a really
> simple process for authors. Write XEP. Publish. Rinse. Repeat. All the way
> until Draft.
>
> I've no particular interest in improving the quality of ProtoXEPs - the
> quality gate there is next to zero anyway (by intention). The quality gate
> kicks in at Draft, and we should worry, if anything, about that Introducing
> more roadblocks to get to Draft doesn't seem useful.
>
> Basically, your labs proposal ought to happen, but it ought to be the
> Experimental state, not some new state beforehand.
>
>
>> XEP development behind closed doors is not desirable.
>>
>
> In this, we entirely agree.
>
>
>>
>> - Florian
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Standards mailing list
>> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20160705/56a705e4/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list