XSF Editor Team - 2020-11-01


  1. mdosch

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/996/ should be splitted as it touches several XEPs and revision blocks should be added right?

  2. mdosch

    Also does https://github.com/xsf/xeps/blob/master/docs/TRIAGING.md No 5 apply to all XEPs not being ProtoXEPs and not in experimental state? So also for deferred XEPs?

  3. jonas’

    mdosch, #996 touches a bunch of related XEPs and it may be purely editorial

  4. jonas’

    in which case it might be OK to not split it, but it does need the [Needs Revision Block] label

  5. jonas’

    in which case it might be OK to not split it, but it does need the [Needs Version Block] label

  6. jonas’

    mdosch, good catch w.r.t. Deferred; if you have the time, please make a PR against TRIAGING.md to fix that. Deferred should be treated the same as Experimental, except that a note needs to be added for the Processing Editor to remind them of de-Defer the XEP if the changes are non-Editorial

  7. mdosch

    Version not revision block label?

  8. mdosch

    Ah I see. Thanks :)

  9. jonas’

    the label is called Needs Version Block

  10. jonas’

    there is no Needs Revision Block label

  11. mdosch

    Yes, I saw just after I asked. :D

  12. mdosch

    Another thing: For the "flow chart" in 3 ii and iii should have an stop added and should be moved before i. Otherwise you'd add the label ready to merge prior to checking for the version block.

  13. jonas’

    that is OK

  14. jonas’

    or maybe not, the order could be flipped

  15. jonas’

    Ready to Merge and Needs Version Block are not mutually exclusive

  16. jonas’

    Ready to Merge just means that the author does not need to do anything and that all approvals have been collected

  17. mdosch

    Wouldn't you wait for the change before merging?

  18. jonas’

    only if you let the author do it

  19. mdosch

    Ah ok.

  20. jonas’

    Needs Version Block is mainly an instruction for the Processing Editor, not for the author

  21. mdosch

    De-deferr means changing the state to experimental?

  22. jonas’

    yes

  23. mdosch

    Thanks

  24. mdosch

    Damn.

  25. mdosch

    I wanted to push it to my fork and PR but I accidentally pushed directly to the repo. :(

  26. mdosch

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/commit/55a8b66e21a681170c7c77c76c48c6e3cb88ca19

  27. jonas’

    looking at it

  28. jonas’

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/commit/55a8b66e21a681170c7c77c76c48c6e3cb88ca19#r43771271 otherwise LGTM

  29. jonas’

    https://github.com/xsf/xeps/commit/55a8b66e21a681170c7c77c76c48c6e3cb88ca19#r43771332

  30. mdosch

    Just remove it?

  31. mdosch

    So, this time I made it properly as a PR: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/997

  32. jonas’

    Maybe move the `If the XEP is in Deferred state` item one step up, then the Otherwise is still correct.

  33. mdosch

    Done

  34. jonas’

    mdosch, something is off with the email address you’re using in the commits, please make sure it’s associated with your github account

  35. mdosch

    Added it to the github account.

  36. jonas’

    perfect, thanks

  37. mdosch gets a bad consciousness for keeping jonas’ busy on a sunday. :D

  38. jonas’

    no worries :)

  39. jonas’

    it’s my choice to act on these messages :)