On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. +1 and I'd rather save subsequent reviewers from picking up on the same issues that have already been identified. I do have WGs post revisions at several stages once it gets to AD review & IESG processing for that reason and versions are cheap ;-) > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > -- Best regards, Kathleen