Open opentracing-importer opened 8 years ago
Comment by cwe1ss Friday Oct 28, 2016 at 10:03 GMT
Sounds great! My only small concern is the repo-name common
as it's not clear to me whether it's about the standard itself or common programming tools/libraries/etc. Would using spec
, specification
, standard
, discussions
, ... be a better choice?
Comment by adriancole Saturday Oct 29, 2016 at 00:50 GMT
ex in zipkin, we have zipkin-api for the thing holding the specs (openapi, thrift definitions), though that might not be the same (since maybe the output of the discussions won't be in the same repo)
Comment by bensigelman Saturday Oct 29, 2016 at 14:41 GMT
@cwe1ss good idea re specification
-- should make things clearer.
Comment by bensigelman Sunday Oct 30, 2016 at 19:58 GMT
In light of the lack-of-complaints here, I've cancelled the formal gcal invite for the weds weekly meeting since it's going to die. :) In doing so I realized that the invite list had fallen out-of-date anyway.
Well, the importer thing works, at least to a first approximation... I'll give people a few days to say "STOP STOP TERRIBLE IDEA" before doing this for all non-documentation issues (including closed ones).
Well, the migration tool was a total fail. It has lots of soft-errors and was only partially migrating issues.
I decided to just do them manually. :-/ Sad times.
But what's done is done! With that migration behind us, I will now go through and update the docs site to point to the right place(s) and fix a few other issues in the documentation spec along the way.
Oh, PS: all imported issues have the imported
label and can be found here: https://github.com/opentracing/specification/labels/imported
@bensigelman , May be you should add all contributors, for OpenTracing spec or Platform-impl , to the Collaborators list of this repo?
Because this repo is only used in discussion, few people will become contributors. It will be hard to tell the diff when read the issue comments. This is not so cool.
@wu-sheng I understand what you're suggesting, but I'm reluctant to pursue that path since it will be difficult to maintain. I think we just need better docs and pointers to the specification
repo, or that's where I'd like to start.
That's OK. Add a spec issue link to the website. Maybe better.
Issue by bensigelman Wednesday Oct 26, 2016 at 22:33 GMT Originally opened as https://github.com/opentracing/opentracing.io/issues/144
OpenTracing has come a long way in less than a year! We hit a 1.0 spec, have a shiny website, linked up with CNCF, and so on. Certain things that we've been doing "out of habit" probably ought to be changed now that things are a little more stable. This issue is a proposal about same.
Briefly, these are the problems I'd like to solve:
My proposal is to...
github.com/opentracing/common
github.com/opentracing/opentracing.io
) repo over toopentracing/common
... there's a script for that, hopefully it works.yaml
-style data toopentracing/common
as wellConcerns about the above? Errors of omission? Other thoughts?
alphabetical cc: @adriancole @basvanbeek @beberlei @bg451 @cwe1ss @dawallin @dkuebric @jmacd @lookfwd @michaelsembwever @oibe @slimsag @yurishkuro