On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 11:42 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In some cases, it has been demonstrated to pay off. Clearly, the cost
is lower if all of the folks working on the document are already using
git for other reasons. Even without that, when there are multiple
people actively working on the document, some form of multi-user
revision and update control is very helpful. Git seems to be a good match.
Many I-Ds have multiple authors, but in practice only one pen-holder.
Particularly for simpler I-Ds, the benefits of using git to complement
our eixisting archival version control does not seem to pay off.
FWIW, I have been involved in a number of documents where I am the only pen holder (i.e., I had no co-authors and I was entirely responsible for the contents of the document) and I still found Git/Github to be a huge advantage, for several reasons:
- It lets you easily float proposed changes to the document for WG review.
- It allows others to propose changes to you in a fashion which is easy to review and accept or reject
- It allows you to recover from your own editing mistakes (in the same way as it's useful to use source code control even on your own projects)
Obviously, others may differ.
As I understand it, the current state of play is to allow working groups
to use git when they deem it helpful. ANd the purpose of the proposed
working group is to write down and agree on common good practices when
doing that. Pretty hard to argue with that
This is my understanding as well.
. But to the degree that
folks make arguments like yours below that seem to be using it as an
excuse to argue that we should all use git all the time, I will object.
(To be clear, I do not think that the original proposers were asking for
that, and I am not objecting to the charter as written. I am asking the
folks remember that there are MANY different perspectives both in terms
of tool chains and in terms of the kind of I-Ds that need to be
generated. NFSv4 is not the same as QUIC is not the same as the draft
on fragmentation considered harmful.)
Yes, I agree with this, and I don't think that this proposed WG is or should be about pushing people to adopt Git/Github.
However, with that said, if someone came to me and asked me what toolchain I thought they should use to write an I-D, I would advise them to use Github.
-Ekr
Yours,
Joel
On 1/21/19 2:18 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> Rather weird to read an entire article talking about 'forges'
>> that doesn’t mention SourceForge, the granddaddy of them all
>
> Sourceforge is the worst choice I’m aware of.
> (Yes, we did projects on Sourceforge when they were the only play in town.
> We got rid of them when they became criminals [drive-by installers].
> Yes, they have new management, but I have no idea why one would go back.)
>
>> My take is that, if you're contemplating using git as a necessary
>> tool to help you develop and maintain an internet-draft, you should
>> question why you’re writing an internet-draft in the first place...
>
> People who do software know that documents are code and need revision control as much as the other code. Git is the consensus way to do collaborative revision control. Why on earth would I use it for everything else and not for my Internet-Drafts?
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> (Git is “not necessary” in the same way that toilets are “not necessary”.
> Yes, you can do without, but it is so much cleaner with them, so they have become the standard.)
>
>
