For the third time in two days I find myself, when asking others for opinions about some text, pointing at github commit logs. With the beautiful makefiles we often have, one can't even depend upon having a formatted .txt version there! This is not a rant for or against git or github, but rather about what I perceive as a shyness about posting intermediate versions of Internet Drafts to the datatracker. I understand that in academia, they never like letting half-baked ideas out, and so the -00 that we see from academics are often overdue and overly polished. I know I can't fight that, but at least the -01, etc. could be issued faster? I've even heard some push back from people along the lines of, "wow, that ID has 27 revisions, is it really stable?", and my feelings have often been more along the lines of, "wow, that revision has 27 revisions, the authors are really keen and responsive". I appreciate for some reviewers that having more revisions implies that they think they have to look at the text more often. But given the diff utilities, it shouldn't matter how many revisions there were before times you look, as you can just skip the intermediate versions. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature