XSF Editor Team - 2018-08-06

  1. jonasw

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/691/files Am I really supposed to create a revision block for that, reviving a XEP which hasn’t been touched for eight (!) years from Deferred?

  2. jonasw

    okay, in this specific example it makes sense

  3. jonasw

    there *has* been more interest in Moved recently

  4. jonasw

    but I still don’t think that reviving it from Deferred is warranted just yet

  5. Kev

    I think the rule is just "anyone updates it, it moves back from deferred"

  6. jonasw

    is an extremely simple typo fix an update?

  7. Kev

    Is there a reason not to?

  8. jonasw

    it appears more active than it is

  9. Kev

    Experimental only says "There has been an update", not how interesting the update is.

  10. Kev

    Otherwise, we need a process for deciding which updates justify moving back from Deferred.

  11. Kev

    And that presumably has to be Council rather than Editor.

  12. jonasw

    editorial vs. non-editorial?

  13. Kev

    And ... that seems heavyweight.

  14. jonasw

    another question: what do people think of putting attic links into the notification emails?

  15. Kev

    In favour.

  16. jonasw

    I see three benefits: 1. the links are stable in the sense that they point to the version the email is discussing and always will 2. I can send notification emails right away and don’t have to wait for the docker build process, because I build the attic myself 3. I am less likely to forget pushing the attic after an update because the links are needed for the emails

  17. SamWhited

    Seems like an editorial decision to me; this was the sort of thing I would never bother bumping for.

  18. pep.

    numbers are cheap

  19. pep.

    I'm not really arguing for this though. Not sure what to think. I guess if it's automated it doesn't really matter

  20. jonasw

    you wish it was automated

  21. pep.


  22. SamWhited

    s/bumping/bumping or changing the state/