2.0r2

[davidcarlisle]

I have changed the "final" target directory in the run script to a nominal om-2017-12-01 this directory doesn't actually exist on the website which means that

• standard checkins will cause travis to execute ./run which will update om-editors-draft

• checkins with a message starting [ci final]... will no longer update 2.0r1 in place at om-2017-07-22 currently it will skip the copying to website step.

So edits can take place in OMSTD/master as before, with them appearing at OpenMath.github.io/standard/om20-editors-draft

If at some point we want an official draft of 2.0r2, just check in a directory and index file at a suitable dated address and change the FINAL target in OMSTD/run to that directory. Then check push a [ci final] commit and the documents will be pushed to the dated directory instead of om20-editors-draft

Things to go in to 2.0r2?

• xref/href
• allowing CDComment in CDGroupMember?
• Other open issues in OMSTD or CDs
• anything else that comes up...

[davidcarlisle]

One question to be answered is do you want a diff marked version to be a diff against 2.0 or 2.0r1.

I'd go against 2.0 as there will not be so many diffs and it's easiest, but if we want the diff to be against 2.0r1 then we have to remove all the revisonflag=... attributes from the source to give a "clean base" to start adding revisonflag=.. which will then just show changes between r1 and r2.

I think it's most useful for readers to see a diff against the long standing 2.0 draft and that's easier to do as we just add to the existing diff marking, but I thought I'd raise that here.

[JamesHDavenport]

Oddly enough, I was asking myself the same question, and coming up with the same answer, BUT the list of differences should then be in subsections. James From: David Carlisle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 October 2017 22:39 To: OpenMath/OMSTD <[email protected]> Cc: Subscribed <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OpenMath/OMSTD] 2.0r2 (#13) One question to be answered is do you want a diff marked version to be a diff against 2.0 or 2.0r1. I'd go against 2.0 as there will not be so many diffs and it's easiest, but if we want the diff to be against 2.0r1 then we have to remove all the revisonflag=... attributes from the source to give a "clean base" to start adding revisonflag=.. which will then just show changes between r1 and r2. I think it's most useful for readers to see a diff against the long standing 2.0 draft and that's easier to do as we just add to the existing diff marking, but I thought I'd raise that here. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#13 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGvamc4QnFluTwupJsKHUCJ314kUGdDaks5soAZWgaJpZM4PqCcI>.

[kohlhase]

Oddly enough, I was asking myself the same question, and coming up with the same answer,

I fully agree.

BUT the list of differences should then be in subsections.

I do not understand.

[kohlhase]

Things to go in to 2.0r2?

I think anything that we can reasonably count as "errors".

xref/href

certainly.

allowing CDComment in CDGroupMember?

I would count this as an error as well. And I do not think it has a lot of impact.

Other open issues in OMSTD or CDs

I will go through the old issues in https://github.com/OpenMath/OM3/issues and move over the standard-relevant ones. Then we can schedule them via milestones and make a more comprehensive plan.

anything else that comes up...

we should probably issue a call and at least get @lars-hellstrom involved.

[pdfion]

I am fully in agreement with the changed arrangement that allows a 2.0r2 when it is needed but doesn't require one yet, with differencing against 2.0 (and saying so), and with the present list
(and its intended extension) of items that will come in a later approved 2.0r2 after development in the om20-editors-draft.

[kohlhase]

I triaged the issues from the OM3 repository completely, and the standards-relevant issues are now on this repos.

I have further triaged them into those that can (I think; please check me on this) be handled in R2 into a milestone: see https://github.com/OpenMath/OMSTD/milestone/1
There are currently 17 of those, I think that this is obtainable, and I suggest to work on them.

[kohlhase]

I have also assigned some low-hanging fruit to some of us in the hope that we can make progress on this quite quickly. I suggest we start on those.

[JamesHDavenport]

Happy to try. I can look at the standard ones (and will do): I need to know the right place for the CD ones, though. From: Michael Kohlhase [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 October 2017 08:18 To: OpenMath/OMSTD <[email protected]> Cc: James Davenport <[email protected]>; Assign <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OpenMath/OMSTD] 2.0r2 (#13) I have also assigned some low-hanging fruit to some of us in the hope that we can make progress on this quite quickly. I suggest we start on those. — You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#13 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGvamXeo1suS6tbhjBqBp9iNXoXcuShxks5sod-cgaJpZM4PqCcI>.

[kohlhase]

I need to know the right place for the CD ones, though.

the CD ones are in the CDs repository at https://github.com/OpenMath/CDs/issues

But I have only put the issues there, not assigned any of them.