On 02/03/2017 06:07, Patrick McManus wrote: > 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! > > > You can fix this with better tooling within github and travis integration > fwiw. Checkout the httpbis github https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions > - you'll see the for each adopted draft the README.md has links to the > "editor's draft" in both txt and html as well as the working group draft. > The former is auto-generated on every push to the repo, the latter is a > pointer to datatracker. > > I'm not arguing against updating data tracker more often - just saying this > 'editor's draft' convention can work very well between official revisions > no matter the cadence a WG chooses. The details of that discussion probably belong on ietf-and-github@xxxxxxxx, but I must point out that this way of working *excludes* from the discussion WG participants who don't grok github. Substantial issues need to be discussed on the mailing list and substantial (non-typo) revisions need to be posted as I-Ds. Brian