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

Update ReSpec versions #3688

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 20, 2024
Merged

Update ReSpec versions #3688

merged 1 commit into from May 20, 2024

Conversation

github-actions[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is automatically triggered by GitHub action respec.

The versions/v*.md files have changed, so the HTML files are automatically being regenerated.

Copy link
Contributor

@lornajane lornajane left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks like the change in the layout in the maintainers file caused this to show the new people as former editors, and dropped our emeritus members completely. We need to revisit something between the maintainers file and the HTML thing.

@handrews
Copy link
Contributor

@lornajane oof.. and really, each published spec should show the then-current TSC members, not the now-current ones.

@ralfhandl
Copy link
Contributor

The build script expects "Emeritus" to be the second unordered list:

u = $('ul').eq(1);
$(u).children('li').each(function(e){
let t = $(this).text().split('@')[0];
emeritus.push({name:t});
});

Now the second section is "Provisional".

Should provisional maintainers be mentioned in the specification? If not, we could simply decide not to publish specifications during the probation period 😄

@ralfhandl
Copy link
Contributor

ralfhandl commented May 3, 2024

each published spec should show the then-current TSC members

Per patch version, or only per minor version? Should 3.0.1, 3.0.2, and 3.0.3 show the 3.0.0 TSC state, or the TSC state per publishing date?

Minor complication: MAINTAINERS.md was created between publication of 3.0.0 and 3.0.1 and years after publication of 2.0. It does not reflect the TSC state when 2.0 was published, and the editor's list currently shown on https://spec.openapis.org/oas/v2.0 is not in sync with the publication date.

@handrews
Copy link
Contributor

handrews commented May 3, 2024

Should provisional maintainers be mentioned in the specification? If not, we could simply decide not to publish specifications during the probation period 😄

Or we could fix the build script? (#3693) There's still also the problem that it's not attaching the maintainers from the right commit to each document, so we need to fix some part of the script no matter what. OAS 3.0.0-3.1.0 should not be published with the current TSC membership listed.

Minor complication: MAINTAINERS.md was created between publication of 3.0.0 and 3.0.1 and years after publication of 2.0. It does not reflect the TSC state when 2.0 was published, and the editor's list currently shown on https://spec.openapis.org/oas/v2.0 is not in sync with the publication date.

The script actually special-cases 2.0, so I'm not sure why that's wrong.

I'd request that we continue this in #3693 and a new PR to fix it, rather than this PR.

@handrews
Copy link
Contributor

handrews commented May 14, 2024

@ralfhandl it now looks like Jason Harmon shows up only as a former editor, never current. Is that expected based on #3782, or should he have been included in the static content for 2.0?

@ralfhandl
Copy link
Contributor

ralfhandl commented May 15, 2024

@ralfhandl it now looks like Jason Harmon shows up only as a former editor, never current. Is that expected based on #3782, or should he have been included in the static content for 2.0?

His activity seems to start after 2.0 was published, so the 2.0 editor's lists seem correct.

His activity seems to end before 3.0.0 was published, so he should appear as a former editor for 3.0.0. I'll have to create another snapshot of MAINTAINERS.md for 3.0.0 instead of reusing the 2.0 one: #3808

Signed-off-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@ralfhandl ralfhandl marked this pull request as ready for review May 16, 2024 18:56
@ralfhandl ralfhandl dismissed lornajane’s stale review May 16, 2024 18:57

Seems ok now, please re-review

@ralfhandl ralfhandl requested a review from lornajane May 16, 2024 18:58
@handrews handrews merged commit 43c324a into gh-pages May 20, 2024
@handrews handrews deleted the update-respec-version branch May 20, 2024 16:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants