RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is better -- why are we so shy?
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 01 March 2017 16:04 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A83129567 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:04:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 slYOQpCADCwI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB99D1294ED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98159E20E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:26:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9420A6381A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:04:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is better -- why are we so shy?
X-Attribution: mcr
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 11:04:26 -0500
Message-ID: <14476.1488384266@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ijx-8poZx1cRooCMIXQF6E09Mnk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:04:34 -0000
For the third time in two days I find myself, when asking others for opinions about some text, pointing at github commit logs. With the beautiful makefiles we often have, one can't even depend upon having a formatted .txt version there! This is not a rant for or against git or github, but rather about what I perceive as a shyness about posting intermediate versions of Internet Drafts to the datatracker. I understand that in academia, they never like letting half-baked ideas out, and so the -00 that we see from academics are often overdue and overly polished. I know I can't fight that, but at least the -01, etc. could be issued faster? I've even heard some push back from people along the lines of, "wow, that ID has 27 revisions, is it really stable?", and my feelings have often been more along the lines of, "wow, that revision has 27 revisions, the authors are really keen and responsive". I appreciate for some reviewers that having more revisions implies that they think they have to look at the text more often. But given the diff utilities, it shouldn't matter how many revisions there were before times you look, as you can just skip the intermediate versions. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
- RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is better --… Michael Richardson
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Patrick McManus
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… ned+ietf
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… John C Klensin
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Patrick McManus
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Joe Touch
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Michael Richardson
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Carsten Bormann
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Michael Richardson
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Joe Touch
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Warren Kumari
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… tom p.
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Julian Reschke
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… John C Klensin
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Michael Richardson
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Eric Rescorla
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Eric Rescorla
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Eric Rescorla
- Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is bette… Brian E Carpenter