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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 16 March 2017 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1AB2129AF2 for <ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5m7bpSm7iIE1 for <ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4A97129AD3 for <ietf-and-github@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C8FB22E255; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 18:11:05 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <b1c4f37b-c6b5-ac29-5d2e-28c57a988a0d@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:11:01 +1100
Cc: ietf-and-github@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <182C3216-14F6-4D29-AF6B-54FAF71666E8@mnot.net>
References: <B1A0A921-3034-45B7-BE70-6490BA95A6D7@vpnc.org> <CABkgnnX6Qqhe6D63npbwxUVXa5sOY9AdZ9Ew5Jnb39rY-npjdg@mail.gmail.com> <F3CC8F03-1B28-4944-AFA4-A742B02FC8A0@mnot.net> <b1c4f37b-c6b5-ac29-5d2e-28c57a988a0d@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/2sAxh7iHNnQPqI0fafnoKncqK1E>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-and-github] Single repo vs organization?
X-BeenThere: ietf-and-github@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of using GitHub in IETF activities, particularly for Working Groups" <ietf-and-github.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-and-github>, <mailto:ietf-and-github-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-and-github/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-and-github@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-and-github-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github>, <mailto:ietf-and-github-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 22:11:14 -0000

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/