Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

README.md: contribution about discussion #104

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 12, 2015

Conversation

vbatts
Copy link
Member

@vbatts vbatts commented Aug 10, 2015

Leaning on aspects of golang's contribution
(https://golang.org/doc/contribute.html)

Signed-off-by: Vincent Batts [email protected]

@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Aug 10, 2015

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:04:00AM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

  • README.md: contribution about discussion

This is missing the link to the YouTube channel and the discussion of
the 10-speaker limit which I'd proposed in #102. I think we should
point both of those out in whatever weekly-call documentation we
eventually land.

@vbatts vbatts force-pushed the contribution-updates branch 2 times, most recently from 1a136cd to 1014b30 Compare August 10, 2015 19:51
@vbatts
Copy link
Member Author

vbatts commented Aug 10, 2015

eh? This is rebased on #102 which is in master now.

the `LICENSE` file of this repository.
The specification and code is licensed under the Apache 2.0 license found in the `LICENSE` file of this repository.

## Mailing List
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd put the mailing-list section next to the IRC section. How about sorting channels to the front and usage to the back:

  • Mailing List
  • IRC
  • Discuss your design
  • Weekly Call

It would also be nice to standardize around “Title Case” or “Sentance case”, headers, since the current spec isn't very consistent there.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fair, though honestly, process of discussion comes first in my mind.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:33:21PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

Fair, though honestly, process of discussion comes first in my mind.

Works for me.

@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Aug 10, 2015

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:53:07PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

eh? This is rebased on #102 which is in master now.

That rebase addresses 1, but the ordering I suggest in 2 applies
to the post-rebase version (1014b30). Or were you asking about
something else?

@vbatts vbatts force-pushed the contribution-updates branch from 1014b30 to 0088b64 Compare August 10, 2015 20:34
@vbatts
Copy link
Member Author

vbatts commented Aug 10, 2015

@wking I think we're miscommunicating due to github freshness...

It also guarantees that the design is sound before code is written; a github pull-request is not the place for high-level discussions.

Typos and grammatical errors can go straight to a pull-request.
If there is question, start on the [mailing-list](#mailing-list).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe “If there is a question” → “When in doubt”?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Otherwise it could read like you're pushing all questions (some of which might be better off as issues) to the mailing list.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fair

@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Aug 10, 2015

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:35:21PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

@wking I think we're miscommunicating due to github freshness...

Possibly. I'll try and quote enough context to avoid confusion in the
future.

I filed one minor rewording for 0088b64 1, and you might want to
replace ‘github’ with ‘GitHub’. But I don't feel strongly enough
about either to want to hold up on merging this PR.

@vbatts vbatts force-pushed the contribution-updates branch 2 times, most recently from 6370cb2 to 646cdf6 Compare August 10, 2015 20:58
@vbatts
Copy link
Member Author

vbatts commented Aug 10, 2015

updated

@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Aug 10, 2015

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:58:53PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

updated

646cdf6 looks good to me, although on the pedantic-copy-edit front,
I just noticed a “google groups” potential capitalization fix 1.

@vbatts
Copy link
Member Author

vbatts commented Aug 10, 2015

pedantic. That is the word. :-)

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 5:05 PM, W. Trevor King [email protected]
wrote:

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:58:53PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

updated

646cdf6 looks good to me, although on the pedantic-copy-edit front,
I just noticed a “google groups” potential capitalization fix 1.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#104 (comment).

@vbatts vbatts force-pushed the contribution-updates branch from 646cdf6 to 7c67d5d Compare August 10, 2015 21:11
@vbatts
Copy link
Member Author

vbatts commented Aug 10, 2015

updated

@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Aug 10, 2015

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 02:10:45PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

pedantic. That is the word. :-)

Measure twice, cut once ;). Anyhow, 7c67d5d looks good to me.

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Aug 11, 2015

lgtm.

Aside: shall we informally agree to just finish off the current design discussions that are "in progress" on GitHub and say new stuff goes to the mailing list?

@vbatts
Copy link
Member Author

vbatts commented Aug 11, 2015

Some verbiage is needed around github issues that are effectively proposals
or design discussions.
On Aug 11, 2015 00:10, "Brandon Philips" [email protected] wrote:

lgtm.

Aside: shall we informally agree to just finish off the current design
discussions that are "in progress" on GitHub and say new stuff goes to the
mailing list?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#104 (comment).

@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Aug 11, 2015

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:33:06PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

Some verbiage is needed around github issues that are effectively proposals
or design discussions.

I think the proposed wording pushes proposals and design discussions
to the list. What more do you want to add?

And I think keeping existing issues on GitHub makes sense. Migrating
them to the list would just fragment discussion. This PR should just
apply to discussions that start after this PR lands.

@vbatts
Copy link
Member Author

vbatts commented Aug 11, 2015

@wking not so much migrating them. Defining what role github issues is to play.

@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Aug 11, 2015

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:40:18AM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

@wking not so much migrating them. Defining what role github issues
is to play.

I think “Issues are used for bugs and actionable items and longer
discussions can happen on the mailing list” covers that pretty well.
If you're reporting a typo, confusing sentence, or bug (things leading
to a semver patch release), open an issue. If you're suggesting a
change in semantics (things leading to a semver major or minor
release), post to the list.


The project welcomes submissions, but please let everyone know what you are working on.

Before undertaking a not-trivial change to this specification, send mail to the [mailing list](#mailing-list) to discuss what you plan to do.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nontrivial instead of not-trivial?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fixed

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Aug 12, 2015

lgtm

Leaning on aspects of golang's contribution
(https://golang.org/doc/contribute.html)

Signed-off-by: Vincent Batts <[email protected]>
@vbatts vbatts force-pushed the contribution-updates branch from 7c67d5d to 7e22d0d Compare August 12, 2015 17:30
@crosbymichael
Copy link
Member

LGTM

crosbymichael added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 12, 2015
README.md: contribution about discussion
@crosbymichael crosbymichael merged commit 7e4a877 into opencontainers:master Aug 12, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants