ReSpec updated

[Shane McCarron]

Okay - we have a stable ReSpec pushed that supports the new stylesheets
etc. by default, and has a number of other changes. Sorry for the delay.
Thanks to Marcos for all his late nights and hard work to get this stable
again!

[Michael Cooper]

There are still changes impacting publication; this version is adding
"It is expected to become a W3C Note." for a Note-track document that
pubrules rejects; the previous version did not add that, and is accepted
by pubrules. This is the one giving me pain right now but there may be
others. The output of the new respec needs checking against pubrules
before it can be considered fixed. Michael

Post by Shane McCarron
Okay - we have a stable ReSpec pushed that supports the new
stylesheets etc. by default, and has a number of other changes. Sorry
for the delay. Thanks to Marcos for all his late nights and hard work
to get this stable again!
--
-Shane

[Michael Cooper]

Shane told me to do a force-refresh and that did fix the proximate
problem. Michael

Post by Michael Cooper
There are still changes impacting publication; this version is adding
"It is expected to become a W3C Note." for a Note-track document that
pubrules rejects; the previous version did not add that, and is
accepted by pubrules. This is the one giving me pain right now but
there may be others. The output of the new respec needs checking
against pubrules before it can be considered fixed. Michael

Post by Shane McCarron
Okay - we have a stable ReSpec pushed that supports the new
stylesheets etc. by default, and has a number of other changes.
Sorry for the delay. Thanks to Marcos for all his late nights and
hard work to get this stable again!
--
-Shane

[Shane McCarron]

Interesting - 1) I didn't know we were publishing any notes right now, and
2) Happy to rip that out if it shouldn't be there. URI?

There are still changes impacting publication; this version is adding "It
is expected to become a W3C Note." for a Note-track document that pubrules
rejects; the previous version did not add that, and is accepted by
pubrules. This is the one giving me pain right now but there may be others.
The output of the new respec needs checking against pubrules before it can
be considered fixed. Michael

Post by Shane McCarron
Okay - we have a stable ReSpec pushed that supports the new stylesheets
etc. by default, and has a number of other changes. Sorry for the delay.
Thanks to Marcos for all his late nights and hard work to get this stable
again!
--
-Shane

[Tobie Langel]

Post by Michael Cooper
There are still changes impacting publication; this version is adding
"It is expected to become a W3C Note." for a Note-track document that
pubrules rejects; the previous version did not add that, and is accepted
by pubrules. This is the one giving me pain right now but there may be
others. The output of the new respec needs checking against pubrules
before it can be considered fixed. Michael

I'm sure a pull request fixing this would be most welcome. :)

--tobie

[Michael Cooper]

Post by Tobie Langel

Post by Michael Cooper
There are still changes impacting publication; this version is adding
"It is expected to become a W3C Note." for a Note-track document that
pubrules rejects; the previous version did not add that, and is accepted
by pubrules. This is the one giving me pain right now but there may be
others. The output of the new respec needs checking against pubrules
before it can be considered fixed. Michael

I'm sure a pull request fixing this would be most welcome. :)

When I'm in publication hell, exacerbated by a recently broken tool,
trying to learn the code in order to submit a pull request is just not
possible. I just don't have time to deal with that. Michael

Post by Tobie Langel
--tobie

[Shane McCarron]

Nor should you. I will dig it out. I was just looking for a reference to
something that exhibited the behavior.

Post by Michael Cooper

Post by Tobie Langel

Post by Michael Cooper
There are still changes impacting publication; this version is adding
"It is expected to become a W3C Note." for a Note-track document that
pubrules rejects; the previous version did not add that, and is accepted
by pubrules. This is the one giving me pain right now but there may be
others. The output of the new respec needs checking against pubrules
before it can be considered fixed. Michael

I'm sure a pull request fixing this would be most welcome. :)

When I'm in publication hell, exacerbated by a recently broken tool,
trying to learn the code in order to submit a pull request is just not
possible. I just don't have time to deal with that. Michael

Post by Tobie Langel
--tobie

[Michael Cooper]

Post by Shane McCarron
Nor should you. I will dig it out. I was just looking for a
reference to something that exhibited the behavior.

I was testing a local document prior to publishing live, but using the
absolute reference to Respec. So hard to pass a URI.

But as I mentioned in a part of the thread that crossed with this part,
Shane's suggestion at the tail end of a telecon to force-refresh fixed
it. I just hadn't expected that that should be necessary. So no need to
spend time investigating.

But nonetheless felt need to push back on "just submit a pull request"
because that is a highly unrealistic expectation for most users of
Respec. I have a couple times tried to learn the Respec code in order to
submit pull requests but quickly got lost; there is no hope of taking
time to do that when I'm trying to get a publication out under pressure
of committed dates.

Michael

Post by Shane McCarron
There are still changes impacting publication; this
version is adding
"It is expected to become a W3C Note." for a Note-track
document that
pubrules rejects; the previous version did not add that,
and is accepted
by pubrules. This is the one giving me pain right now but
there may be
others. The output of the new respec needs checking
against pubrules
before it can be considered fixed. Michael
I'm sure a pull request fixing this would be most welcome. :)
When I'm in publication hell, exacerbated by a recently broken
tool, trying to learn the code in order to submit a pull request
is just not possible. I just don't have time to deal with that.
Michael
--tobie
--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops

[Tobie Langel]

Post by Michael Cooper

Nor should you.  I will dig it out.  I was just

looking for a reference to something that exhibited the
behavior.

Post by Michael Cooper
I was testing a local document prior to publishing live, but using

the absolute reference to Respec. So hard to pass a URI.
But as I mentioned in a part of the thread that crossed with this
part, Shane's suggestion at the tail end of a telecon to force-
refresh fixed it. I just hadn't expected that that should be
necessary. So no need to spend time investigating.
But nonetheless felt need to push back on "just submit a pull
request" because that is a highly unrealistic expectation for most
users of Respec. I have a couple times tried to learn the Respec
code in order to submit pull requests but quickly got lost; there is
no hope of taking time to do that when I'm trying to get a
publication out under pressure of committed dates.

This feeling of entitlement to open-source software is why open-source
developers burn-out and end up abandoning development of their projects
altogether.

So what might seem a highly unrealistic expectation today, might be
something you'll have to figure out on your own in the not so
distant future.

That said, I don't have any insider information on Marcos and Shane's
plans. They might still be around in a decade working on Respec for
all I know.

--tobie

[Tobie Langel]

Post by Michael Cooper

Post by Tobie Langel

Post by Michael Cooper
There are still changes impacting publication; this version is adding
"It is expected to become a W3C Note." for a Note-track document that
pubrules rejects; the previous version did not add that, and is accepted
by pubrules. This is the one giving me pain right now but there may be
others. The output of the new respec needs checking against pubrules
before it can be considered fixed. Michael

I'm sure a pull request fixing this would be most welcome. :)

When I'm in publication hell, exacerbated by a recently broken tool,
trying to learn the code in order to submit a pull request is just not
possible. I just don't have time to deal with that.

Remember open-source contributors don't owe you anything and might be as
exacerbated by your expression of entitlement as you might be by their
broken tool. A tool which you are getting for free. :)

--tobie

[Michael Cooper]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound entitled, but recognize that the
wording of my message does sound that way. I know Respec is a volunteer
project made available for free. I would like to be able to contribute
and share the load, but it uses a technology I just don't have skills
in. So I have to depend on the people who do maintain it, to do so
carefully. I think this whole recent episode shows the need to be
careful with a production version, and to engage more people in review
of development versions. Though I can't produce useful pull requests, I
could provide useful input on something that I'm not depending on
urgently for publication, but haven't known how to engage with that
process. Michael

Post by Tobie Langel

Post by Michael Cooper

Post by Tobie Langel

Post by Michael Cooper
There are still changes impacting publication; this version is adding
"It is expected to become a W3C Note." for a Note-track document that
pubrules rejects; the previous version did not add that, and is accepted
by pubrules. This is the one giving me pain right now but there may be
others. The output of the new respec needs checking against pubrules
before it can be considered fixed. Michael

I'm sure a pull request fixing this would be most welcome. :)

When I'm in publication hell, exacerbated by a recently broken tool,
trying to learn the code in order to submit a pull request is just not
possible. I just don't have time to deal with that.

Remember open-source contributors don't owe you anything and might be as
exacerbated by your expression of entitlement as you might be by their
broken tool. A tool which you are getting for free. :)
--tobie

[Tobie Langel]

Post by Michael Cooper
I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound

entitled, but recognize that the wording of my message does sound
that way. I know Respec is a volunteer project made available for
free. I would like to be able to contribute and share the load,
but it uses a technology I just don't have skills in. So I have to
depend on the people who do maintain it, to do so carefully. I
think this whole recent episode shows the need to be careful with
a production version, and to engage more people in review of
development versions. Though I can't produce useful pull requests,
I could provide useful input on something that I'm not depending
on urgently for publication, but haven't known how to engage with
that process. Michael

Apologies accepted. :)

I do think the team is quite aware that this update happened in less
than ideal conditions (though again, I can't speak on their behalf).

It might be worth discussing solutions to easily switch to a previous
stable version in case the latest release has bugs which block you from
publishing (I think Shane kind of informally set something of that sort
up recently).

--tobie

[Shane McCarron]

We are painfully aware that we screwed up a bunch of people. You have no
idea how aware.

I am going to put new processes in place moving forward. As to rolling
back to stable versions.... yes, we should have done that two weeks ago. I
considered it several times. I could have pulled a branch off and created
a new release with the 1 change needed. I got wrapped up in the "we are 2
seconds from fixing the core problem" mindset. For 10 days. I am very
upset with myself. You would think after 35 years in the industry I would
know better.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound entitled, but recognize that the wording
of my message does sound that way. I know Respec is a volunteer project
made available for free. I would like to be able to contribute and share
the load, but it uses a technology I just don't have skills in. So I have
to depend on the people who do maintain it, to do so carefully. I think
this whole recent episode shows the need to be careful with a production
version, and to engage more people in review of development versions.
Though I can't produce useful pull requests, I could provide useful input
on something that I'm not depending on urgently for publication, but
haven't known how to engage with that process. Michael
Apologies accepted. :)
I do think the team is quite aware that this update happened in less than
ideal conditions (though again, I can't speak on their behalf).
It might be worth discussing solutions to easily switch to a previous
stable version in case the latest release has bugs which block you from
publishing (I think Shane kind of informally set something of that sort up
recently).
--tobie