Subject: [Tools-discuss] repo and issue tracker per draft

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 12:51:27 -0400

Would it be reasonable to add two columns to each document that DT tracks.

One would be "revision_controlled_at" column which would point to some place
where the history repo of the document exists.  http:, git:, and potentially
hg:, etc. URL would be welcome.

A second column would point towards a URL at which a human may interact with an
issue tracker.  This item would default to the tools TRAC for IDs that are in
WGs. (Maybe WG chairs would be able to turn off the TRAC, but that's a
seperate issue)

At this point, I simply want to be able to find each thing easily,
*particularly* for individual submissions which may not yet be adopted
(or may never be).

I know that many have suggested that the IETF ought to be cloning/mirroring
any repos used as part of the NoteWell and (personal) disaster recovery
process.  So having a bunch of URLs would be useful for that, but as far as
I'm concerned there is value anyway.

I'm sure a few will answer will be "send code": I probably will, but I felt
it worth asking first so as not to duplicate effort.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Tom Pusateri <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 12:53:32 -0400

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

I think this is a great idea. There are lots of drafts on Github these days and the github issue tracker is used but it’s hard to find them.

Tom

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 19:46:05 +0200

On 2017-09-07 18:53, Tom Pusateri wrote:
>  ...
> ...

I agree it's a good idea.

That said, *some* authors/WGs already add issue tracker/repository 
information to the front page of their drafts.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 16:10:49 -0400

> I agree it's a good idea.

I wouldn't mind if the info was also in some xml <link> tags or equivalent.

    > information to the front page of their drafts.

That's a good idea.  Be nice to have some other xml tags for
<RFC-EDITOR-PLEASE-OMIT> , which we actually do in many places already.

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 17:20:57 -0400

> information to the front page of their drafts.

I also like this proposal, and i think having a clear, standard place
outside of the document which stores it would be good even if the draft
already mentions it internally.

        --dkg

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 09:59:01 +1000

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> [...] having a clear, standard place

Very much so.  I think that I requested this when I was talking to
Henrik about automated draft submission (coming soon, I hope).  Having
clearly identifiable metadata is superior to having the information in
the draft.  You can build tools that use the metadata.  Also, I forget
to add the stuff Julian talks about, and I'm sure many others do.  I
can automate the addition of the metadata.

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:34:57 -0400

> hg:, etc. URL would be welcome.

Doesn't the Datatracker *contain* the history of the document?

Dale

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 21:09:39 -0400

> Doesn't the Datatracker *contain* the history of the document?

No, it contains the versions that the authors submitted.
It has no process for sending text, or access to the "source" forms
(such as markdown).

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 06:11:39 +0200

> can automate the addition of the metadata.

If you can automate the addition of metadata, why can't you automate the 
addition of data as well?

Best regards, Julian (not *opposed* to metadata, but it would be good ot 
it turned to readable text for readers of the draft)

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 15:07:27 +1000

> addition of data as well?

If I could reliably detect that the text was already there, maybe.
False negatives means adding redundant information.

Also, there are many input formats.  That's new code for every variant.

Not impossible, it's just easier to add metadata.  As long as
displaying that metadata is easy enough.

Of course, if xml2rfc were to accept a new XML attribute/element and
use that to generate a standardized paragraph, adding the metadata to
XML is fairly simple.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 07:24:02 +0200

> False negatives means adding redundant information.

You could check for a <note> with a well-defined @title, or for a 
paragraph in a note with a well defined @anchor.

> Also, there are many input formats.  That's new code for every variant.

That's the same problem for metadata, right?

> use that to generate a standardized paragraph, adding the metadata to

<https://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7991.html#element.link> with a 
custom link relation comes to mind...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:12:40 +0200

> can automate the addition of the metadata.

Yes.  I'll make this part of the more general feature of providing support
for associating URLs with documents, which is right after the automated
draft submission item in my PLAN file:
  https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/browser/trunk/PLAN

Best regards,

	Henrik