[Infrastructure] Updated instructions for GitHub ballot merge after IPR review

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)]

On 2020-09-25 8:16 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 1:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) 
> <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>> wrote:
>
>
>     During the latest SC33 merge into main,
>
>     Wayne had to do some additional commits to bring the pull request
>     up to
>     speed before being able to create a merge request for SC33.
>
>     According to the current process documented in
>     https://wiki.cabforum.org/github_redline_guide#chair_or_vice_chair_onlyactions_before_the_ipr_review_period_chair_or_vice_chair,
>
>     step 3. says "Open the existing “Pull Request” that contains the
>     immutable red line.".
>
>     In some of the recent ballots (SC33, SC28) there were no pull
>     requests
>     but instead just immutable compare links. My first question is how
>     can
>     the Chair (or Vice Chair) create such a pull request, when the
>     changes
>     are in a private fork (e.g. Neil's or Wayne's fork)?
>
>
> You can open a PR against cabforum from their repository (from the 
> compare link).
>
> Alternatively,  you can fork their fork (which will have all the same 
> commit hashes) into a copy of your own, and open the PR.
>
> These are steps that can be done at any point in the balloting 
> process, and we suggested in the past that the infrastructure group 
> could help out anyone who had trouble with this / doesn't want to go 
> through the main.
>
>     Assuming there is such a pull request in some private fork, and
>     assuming
>     that there has already been an update in the Baseline Requirements
>     document in between, the workflow should be updated to include some
>     additional steps in the forked repo:
>
>     3a: re-sync the forked repo with the cabforum/documents main
>     branch. How
>     does this "re-sync" process look like from a practical standpoint?
>
>
> Our existing documentation should cover this.
>
>     3b: resolution of any conflicts so that the end result of the pull
>     request will be against the "latest" version of the BRs in
>     cabforum/documents main
>
>
> This is the more problematic part, because our Bylaws very clearly 
> state that, in Section 2.4:
>
> "Such redline
> or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as 
> they exist
> at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into consideration 
> other
> ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as provided in 
> Section 2.4(10)
> below."
>
> This was the same issue with the Word doc, but now we have 
> programmatic enforcement that ballots aren't stomping eachother, and 
> if they do, to resolve them as described in Section 2.4 of the Bylaws
>
>     Are there any other issues to consider? I know that Wayne spent some
>     time doing this over SC33 so he could share his experience so we
>     can all
>     help updating the documentation on the wiki.
>
>
>     Thanks,
>     Dimitris.
>
>     PS: I will soon need to do this when the IPR review period is over
>     for
>     SC28 and SC35
>
>
> Did you mean SC33 here? SC35 followed this process

SC33 is already merged, so I only have SC28 and SC35. SC35 is already 
merged in a new branch (https://github.com/cabforum/documents/tree/SC35) 
and the pull request (https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/208) 
shows as "merged". However the SC35 branch shows "out of sync"?



When the time comes to merge to Main, what would be the best way to do 
it along with SC28? Perhaps it would be best to first squash and merge 
SC28 to Main, then do the same for SC35 and update tables, versions, etc.

Thoughts?
Dimitris.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200925/10f1ea68/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kpcaekjhdncaolfe.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7413 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200925/10f1ea68/attachment-0001.png>