[Infrastructure] Preparation of review period for SC30 and SC31

Wed Jul 22 08:59:20 MST 2020

Yes, I'm aware you changed it.

I originally had it like that when I updated, but then reverted it (as you
can see in the edit history), because it's inconsistent with the other
links on the page - e.g. the GitHub redline. I was trying to prioritize
consistency within the instructions (e.g. look at Compare Changes)

I don't care one way or the other, but think we should at least be
consistent. If you prefer the <code> block style, which forces a newline,
would you please correct the other instances?

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:40 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:

>
>
> On 2020-07-22 6:02 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
> Eh, that's no more broken than our existing sections on that page. I
> intentionally mirrored that, as opposed to forcing it not to be a
> hyperlink, so that the styles would be consistent.
>
> This definitely fits with Jos' remarks about our wiki stack ;)
>
>
> It's not broken because I fixed it :-)
>
> This is how it's displayed now.
>
>
>
> This was the previous version
>
>
>
> Dimitris.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:06 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2020-07-21 7:27 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>
>> Made edits and added screenshots. It looks like several steps had been
>> omitted from my previous mail, so hopefully that helps.
>>
>>
>> It sure does. Some text is broken under step 8, probably because they are
>> partially converted to hyperlinks.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dimitris.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:42 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
>> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I would appreciate a review of the last two sections added in
>>> https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide before removing the
>>> "under construction".
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Dimitris.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2020-07-20 9:32 μ.μ., Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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> 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)
>>>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
>>>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> <sleevi at google.com>
>>>> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM
>>>> *To: *Dimitris Zacharopoulos <dzacharo at harica.gr> <dzacharo at harica.gr>
>>>> *Cc: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com> <jopurvis at cisco.com>,
>>>> "infrastructure at cabforum.org" <infrastructure at cabforum.org>
>>>> <infrastructure at cabforum.org> <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> 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> 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>:
>>>>
>>>> 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)
>>>> .:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services
>>>> PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | Controls and Trust Verification
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>>>> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 11:07 AM
>>>> *To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" <jopurvis at cisco.com>
>>>> *Cc: *"Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)" <dzacharo at harica.gr>, "
>>>> infrastructure at cabforum.org" <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> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Infrastructure mailing listInfrastructure at cabforum.orghttps://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Infrastructure mailing list
>>> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
>>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200722/50a457a6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: aghpmjeafgiolfda.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11029 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200722/50a457a6/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: npjklcdpdjoijopf.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15657 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200722/50a457a6/attachment-0003.png>