Re: [Ietf-and-github] Single repo vs organization?

+1 for all of the below.

One repo per draft, all of which are in a per-WG organization, is the default model for the groups I’m chairing/advising on this.  (Yes, Martin’s template helps, but I get at least one detail wrong each time I set one up.  Takes about 30 min per repo; could be much faster with some more tooling.)

We tried multiple drafts per repo for CoRE's COMI cluster (interrelated drafts again).  Kind of worked, but maybe our drafts weren’t that much interrelated.
A multi-draft repo may also have a very large team so it becomes harder to know who should be doing what.

One repo per draft probably also is more accessible for external observers.

My most recent PR for Lars’ original draft about github said:

+For most repos, a CI (continuous integration) process is set up that
+generates a readable editor's copy (in HTML form) as well as a diff
+from the most recent submitted version (tools TXT diff), linked from
+the README; both have turned out to be very valuable.  (Unfortunately, the
+travis-based CI process is somewhat brittle, so there is an
+appreciable failure rate.)

The github.io page resulting from the CI is less confusing for a single-draft repo.

(As discussed, github-savvy authors sometimes get lazy pushing drafts into I-Ds again.  This may lead to extended work happening on github only.  Not good.  The tools TXT diff is really useful as long as it does not have to explain multiple reorganizations of the document.)

We also have a few drafts in individual’s github accounts.  This is much less accessible.
I generally favor moving drafts into the WG organization even *before* they become adopted WG drafts.  That may be slightly confusing for outsiders (might get the idea something is adopted that isn’t), but gets people primed on the issues/PR process even before adoption.

Grüße, Carsten

> On 16 Mar 2017, at 23:11, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
> From an end user perspective, having a single-repo-per-draft is preferable; it means you can easily subscribe to updates for just that draft, and don't have extraneous notifications, etc. The repo itself has less information it in as well (naturally), meaning there's less overhead for clones, etc.
> 
> However, creating a repo-per-draft has more administrative overhead. Martin's template repo takes a fair amount of pain out of it, but making sure that things like README, CONTRIBUTING, e-mail notifications to a list, permissions, etc. etc. are set up correctly is not trivial. 
> 
> Personally, I'm less concerned about the amount of work than I am about the risk of getting something wrong on some repo and not noticing.
> 
> Having said that, I think if we were starting HTTPbis from scratch right now, we'd do a repo-per-draft.
> 
> One caveat -- I think there's agreement that in at least one situation, more than one repo-per-draft is preferable. That's when there is a set of highly interrelated drafts that are likely to share issues, and possibly have text migrate between them. We consciously made this decision for the QUIC drafts.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
>> On 17 Mar 2017, at 1:20 am, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> So could somebody with experience set out the pros and cons of
>> (a single repo per WG) vs (an 'organization' with a repo per draft)?
>> 
>> Regards
>>  Brian
>> 
>> On 16/03/2017 18:49, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 16 Mar 2017, at 4:25 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> HTTPBIS - all working group drafts are in a single repo (this is not
>>>> working out great
>>> 
>>> yes, we know you have an axe to grind...
>>> 
>>>> ) and all issues are tracked there; discussion is on
>>>> github; materials like agendas and meeting arrangements are on github
>>>> too
>>> 
>>> Also WG home page -- <https://httpwg.github.io/>.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ietf-and-github mailing list
>>> Ietf-and-github@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
>>> .
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf-and-github mailing list
>> Ietf-and-github@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-and-github mailing list
> Ietf-and-github@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
> 