[Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
dzacharo at harica.gr
Mon Jul 20 11:32:08 MST 2020
I was out of office today so apologies for replying late. The result of
the process is very good and I plan on adding specific instructions on
https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide. Until we reach the next
milestone of automatically creating a red-line, we can create a final
version in the Pull Request, and compare against the existing main branch.
I have attached the resulting docx redline BRs between 1.7.0 and ballots
SC30+31 using the two docx versions I got from the links provided by Jos
and Ryan.
Does this look good to everyone? I will do a more detailed review myself
tomorrow morning (Greek time) before posting to the public lists.
Once again, a big thanks to Jos and Ryan for working on this automation.
Best regards,
Dimitris.
On 2020-07-20 8:40 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> Dimitris: Did that work for you? I didn't hear back so wasn't sure if
> you were sorted now with https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/203
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
> <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>
> Thank you both for the quick response. I recall the instructions
> posted by Ryan; unfortunately I am not so familiar with these
> processes. I will read them more carefully during the weekend. In
> the meantime, if you succeed in getting a combined SC30/SC31 docx
> against the BRs 1.7.0 sent by Jos earlier today, that would save
> me a lot of time.
>
>
> Dimitris.
>
>
> On 17/7/2020 6:59 μ.μ., Jos Purvis (jopurvis) wrote:
>>
>> Sounds good, Ryan! Dimitris, the link I provided is the official
>> DOCX from the official master branch: that’s the 1.7.0 version of
>> the current master-branch BRs. So that’s the current clean master
>> version, against which you can compare something from the ballot
>> outputs to create a binary redline. The trick is getting you
>> something from the SC30/SC31 branches to create that redline
>> against. 😊Ryan, I’ll have a look at it today when I have a
>> chance as well and see if I can sort it.
>>
>> --
>> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>
>> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> <mailto:sleevi at google.com>
>> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM
>> *To: *Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr>
>> <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>
>> *Cc: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
>> <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>, "infrastructure at cabforum.org"
>> <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>> <infrastructure at cabforum.org> <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for
>> SC30 and SC31
>>
>> https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000223.html for
>> the instructions
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:48 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com
>> <mailto:sleevi at google.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Let me dig out the previous e-mail from our discussions about
>> this.
>>
>> The answer is "No, it won't work", and I was offering to get
>> to it once I'm nearer to a computer that can do that.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos
>> <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>>
>> That's fine.
>>
>> Do we have the artifacts from the current official master
>> branch? I can create a PR on our official repo, that
>> contains the commits of both ballots if that
>> automatically creates new artifacts. Then, I can use MS
>> word to compare the display the changes, thus creating a
>> redline.
>>
>> Would this work?
>>
>> DZ.
>>
>> Jul 17, 2020 18:32:10 Jos Purvis (jopurvis)
>> <jopurvis at cisco.com <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>:
>>
>> Hmmm. So I know we’ve never produced uploaded
>> artifacts from PRs /from other people’s forks/, which
>> makes sense—I thought that was the discussion. We’ve
>> been producing artifacts from PRs of branches
>> actually on the cabforum repo, though, because a
>> quick peruse of the S3 bucket contents shows a folder
>> for each cabforum/documents branch up through
>> pandoc-travis-changes.
>>
>> --
>> Jos Purvis (jopurvis at cisco.com
>> <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>)
>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>
>> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com
>> <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
>> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
>> *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com
>> <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>>
>> *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)"
>> <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>>,
>> "infrastructure at cabforum.org
>> <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>"
>> <infrastructure at cabforum.org
>> <mailto:infrastructure at cabforum.org>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Infrastructure] Preparation of review
>> period for SC30 and SC31
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:50 AM Jos Purvis
>> (jopurvis) <jopurvis at cisco.com
>> <mailto:jopurvis at cisco.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dimitris,
>>
>> For the current version in Word format, you can
>> fetch it from this link:
>> https://cabforum-travis-artifacts.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/builds/master/BR.docx
>>
>> That's the same link as the PDF from the front
>> page of the CABF repository, but with the
>> extension changed to docx (we need to update the
>> README on the repository to reflect the new
>> formats and whatnot!).
>>
>> For the SC30 and SC31 ballots, the Travis build
>> completed successfully, but it doesn't look like
>> it uploaded the resulting artifacts to S3. Ryan,
>> is that something we need to fix? (Looks like
>> that used to be the default and isn't anymore?)
>>
>> I think there's some confusion. It was never the
>> default to upload artifacts for PRs. This is the
>> whole discussion about the need to create a dedicated
>> branch within the main CABF repository, then create a
>> PR using that, to have the artifact produced. I'll
>> see about doing that later today.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200720/65c7b9b1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CA-Browser Forum BR 1.7.0+ballot SC30-31-for-review-only.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 158071 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200720/65c7b9b1/attachment-0001.docx>
More information about the Infrastructure
mailing list