On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 3:52 PM Hector Santos <hsantos=40isdg.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/21/2019 12:51 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> 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
Practical. But why GITHUB? Why not push for an IETF Git server?
Because GitHub > git. Pull requests, diff views, review requirements, etc.
If you'd said GitLab, maybe more plausible. But still not a good use of IETF resources.
Full control. Not dependent on 3rd party and you don't have to wait on
Microsoft/GitHub for any advanced integration with other parts of the
IETF RFC review/editing/publishing system. Like you indicated, I would
think most work is under one editor, so it's really an overkill.
I understand the pressure to use what's comfortable with many today,
so I don't like the idea its being used more and more, sort of forcing
others to do the same.
PS: We are still using CVS for our products! Very old school, but it
does the job and no money wasted on duplicity.
That said, is there an RFC on using GitHub for publishing?
I believe that a WG has been proposed to develop such a thing. In the meantime, there's https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template/
--RLB
