Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Editorial-only NITS on QUIC-Transport-24 (#3214)

Mike Bishop <> Thu, 30 January 2020 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4CFD120020 for <>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 09:08:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ax40s5NZgrwM for <>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 09:08:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 302DC120090 for <>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 09:08:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF292615A5 for <>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 09:08:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1580404129; bh=I0pls5RQl53AIRX1GUvB7BoRi4Rg2FEkkCVhDEKSUI0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=h2GBfQRdM+aKQ7fqnsPv4LjN0XZend05plAsSpgFy4OnkDWztZJYBERJeUBf7k6E0 SMhbE+4bdVkACiOr4WoJw1gtjD95VJj1l36LG1VWPUVJqDGjCJYd++BbGhjnkDDfRa AF3upjIX9rwGgEQufjSQPgWD39w4Rk9ndLBr/hrs=
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 09:08:49 -0800
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3214/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Editorial-only NITS on QUIC-Transport-24 (#3214)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e330da177208_7de23fdeedacd9681481dc"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:08:52 -0000

PRs are a great way to fix *simple* editorial issues -- spelling, broken references, etc.  Things get dicey when an "editorial" PR changes the meaning or flow of the text and we don't want to take the whole of a given PR.  Then an editor needs to either accept the PR and partially revert it, or they need to duplicate the work for the things they want to keep.

Without looking super closely at the list of changes here, I probably wouldn't want to get a single PR that made all of these changes at once.  (Noting, of course, that this isn't my document.)

So my personal recommendation:
- Combination PRs for totally obvious editorial fixes
- Separate PRs for more invasive or controversial editorial fixes
- Issues for design changes and/or editorial issues where the solution isn't obvious (or you don't want to write it yourself)

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: