[all] Fold the FXTF specs back into CSSWG?

[tabatkins]

The FXTF was created to foster collaboration between the CSSWG and SVGWG on a handful of specs that seemed like they sat near their intersection.

However, the SVGWG is effectively defunct; it's been able to maintain its charter for another year, but there's been essentially zero participation/maintenance going on for the last several years. In the meantime, maintaining two repos for specs edited by CSSWG members has been a little confusing; we've had issues raised in the CSSWG repo for specs here in FXTF.

Is there any value in maintaining this separation any longer? I propose that we shutter the FXTF and fold all of its specs back into the CSSWG.

[dbaron]

maintaining two repos for specs edited by CSSWG members

Three:

• https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/
• https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/
• https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/

[svgeesus]

@dbaron true, although the TAG is not functionally defunct.

@tabatkins assuming not just the drafts but all the issues can transfer over and GitHub automagically rewrites links to other issues, then that sounds like a great plan.

[dbaron]

and GitHub automagically rewrites links to other issues

I think it does so, although I haven't verified.

But given the principle that we have a W3C archive of all the issues and comments on them, perhaps it would be good to archive the mapping from old issue URLs to new issue URLs so that the archive is similarly useful?

[fantasai]

@dbaron Another option might be to move the spec sources over, and ask people to file new issues in the CSSWG repo, but keep the old issues here and close them one by one as we address them until they're down to zero?

(We can file a placeholder issue for each spec in the CSSWG repo pointing at this one so we don't forget to check over here during triage.)

[dbaron]

I think it's better to migrate the issues. Otherwise we'll just forget about them and they'll never really get down to zero. I suspect we can probably figure out the data to archive after the fact, but if we can't, I'd rather lose that information than have a long term problem of remembering to deal with the gradually shrinking set of remaining issues in this repo.

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed [all] Fold the FXTF specs back into CSSWG?, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: move all fxtx specs into CSSWG github org
• RESOLVED: move all issues into CSSWG repos
• RESOLVED: Merge houdini github repo specs and issues into csswg-drafts repo (preserving history).

The full IRC log of that discussion

<ntim> tabatkins: we made fxtx to bridge the gap between csswg and svg, we do not want to hold the bureaucracy cost of holding 2 repos
<ntim> tabatkins: the svg working group is no longer relevant
<florian> Florian: Yes, do it.
<smfr> q+
<ntim> dbaron: for moving the spec to the other repo, we should preserve git history
<Rossen_> ack dbaron
<ntim> dbaron: you can do it as a merge or rebase, rebase is preferable
<ntim> dbaron: i don't have strong opinion, i mostly want the history
<dbaron> s/rebase is/maybe rebase is/
<ntim> smfr: this isn't just about moving the repo, this is also about folding the work into the CSSWG
<fantasai> There's been a lot of confusion about where issues should be filed, so this will simplify a lot of that for contributors and for ourselves
<florian> q+
<Rossen_> ack smfr
<ntim> we are resolving on the process
<Rossen_> ack florian
<dbaron> presumably there's a github issue migration as wel
<ntim> florian: this is already in our charter, already in our scope
<ntim> RESOLVED: move all fxtx specs into CSSWG github org
<ntim> RESOLVED: move all issues into CSSWG repos
<florian> q+
<Rossen_> ack florian
<ntim> florian: maybe setup redirects?
<ntim> tabatkins: redirects are easy
<ntim> florian: let's do that
<emilio> +1
<ntim> florian: there has never been anyone outside the CSSWG involved in fxtx, so it's ok to do it without outside folks opinion
<fantasai> s/fxtf/houdini/
<dbaron> Scribe+
<dbaron> TabAtkins: let's repeat the same discussion, but for Houdini instead of FXTF
<fantasai> fantasai: The TAG is technically not allowed to publish on the REC track, so they technically can't be co-publishing with us anyway
<florian> s/there has never been anyone outside the CSSWG involved in fxtx, so it's ok to do it without outside folks opinion//
<dbaron> ?: though the TAG still exists
<dbaron> ?: but has anyone on the TAG who's not in CSSWG been involved?
<florian> All the TAG members who have been involved in this are also CSSWG members
<dbaron> Rossen: would like plinss's opinion
<fantasai> [note to scribe, the last several lines are out of order]
<florian> q+
<dbaron> Rossen: Last I spoke to plinss about Houdini, I think he wanted to continue task force between TAG and CSS WG. And that is the definition of CSS Houdini. Whether all the work needs to happen in that repo, or we can move the specs into the CSS WG repo, we can debate. I'd prefer for him to be part of this decision.
<dbaron> Rossen: He was one of the original folks behind forming Houdini.
<Rossen_> q?
<dbaron> TabAtkins: overall point is that collaboration with TAG as a bureaucratic split doesn't seem to have achieved anything. If the TAG wants to continue working with us, that's great.
<fantasai> hober: with my Apple hat off and my TAG hat on
<myles> q+
<dbaron> hober: As another TAG member, agree with what Tab said -- to the extent that there's productive collaboration to be done between TAG participants and CSSWG members -- nothing stopping us from doing that wherever the spec's live. TAG doesn't need the structure of a TF to do that.
<dbaron> hober: And, empirically, having that formal structure doesn't seem to have bought us anything.
<dbaron> hober: I don't think it going away would impair the TAG's ability to contribute.
<Rossen_> ack florian
<dbaron> florian: I agree. If we want to have special days of F2F dedicated to Houdini topics, can still be done even if single repo.
<Rossen_> ack myles
<dbaron> florian: formally the TAG doesn't publish REC-track documents.
<Rossen_> ack myles
<dbaron> RESOLVED: Merge houdini github repo specs and issues into csswg-drafts repo (preserving history).
<fantasai> scribenick: fantasai

[plinss]

Whoever does the migration please ping/coordinate with me so I can update the spec DB and setup the proper redirects from the draft servers.

[svgeesus]

I discussed this with PLH today.

Apparently the recommended approach is to store a json snapshot of the issues list. Then transfer over all the issues. Then write a script that goes through each issue and applies the labels that it had before, as stored in the json.

And to do that with just one issue first, to verify it works before doing them all.

[svgeesus]

(removing the needs edits label as it is not really appropriate here)