# request for comments

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/request-for-comments/1020>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [June 14, 2011, 11:49pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/request-for-comments/1020 "2011-06-14T23:49:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 11:49pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/request-for-comments/1020/1 "2011-06-14T23:49:07Z")

</div>

Another issue we need feedback on (though I think Rintze might explain  
a bit more the rationale):

[https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/issues/53](https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/issues/53)

My argument is for these sorts of changes, we really need to get  
consensus from the entire implementer community. Please try to add  
your two cents by end of next week, and we’ll see where we’re at.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:12am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/request-for-comments/1020/2 "2011-06-15T00:12:37Z")

</div>

So basically the question is how we want to organize the process of  
designing new CSL features and making modifications to the language.

One of the drawbacks of the existing CSL development workflow is that it’s  
rather scattered. There is the xbiblio mailing list at SourceForge, several  
active repos at GitHub (and inactive archive repos at SourceForge and  
Bitbucket), the Zotero forums and the zotero-dev mailing list.

I know that Bruce and Frank follow mostly everything, but it’s a lot to keep  
up with for outsiders. I was thinking that maybe I should be a bit more  
aggressive with committing changes, prepare a changelog before a planned  
release (we would need one anyway to document the changes for CSL style  
authors and implementors), announce plans for release and have a few weeks  
for reflection, and, after polishing things up based on feedback and  
dropping problematic proposals, make a release.

Alternatively we could use our original approach of vetting issues  
one-at-a-time. But this has proven to be rather slow as it’s difficult to  
keep everybody’s attention to prolonged periods of time.

Rintze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/request-for-comments/1020/3 "2011-06-15T01:23:14Z")

</div>

> > Another issue we need feedback on (though I think Rintze might explain  
> > a bit more the rationale):
> > 
> > [https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/issues/53](https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/issues/53)
> > 
> > My argument is for these sorts of changes, we really need to get  
> > consensus from the entire implementer community.
> 
> So basically the question is how we want to organize the process of  
> designing new CSL features and making modifications to the language.
> 
> One of the drawbacks of the existing CSL development workflow is that it’s  
> rather scattered. There is the xbiblio mailing list at SourceForge, several  
> active repos at GitHub (and inactive archive repos at SourceForge and  
> Bitbucket), the Zotero forums and the zotero-dev mailing list.
> 
> I know that Bruce and Frank follow mostly everything, but it’s a lot to keep  
> up with for outsiders. I was thinking that maybe I should be a bit more  
> aggressive with committing changes, prepare a changelog before a planned  
> release (we would need one anyway to document the changes for CSL style  
> authors and implementors), announce plans for release and have a few weeks  
> for reflection, and, after polishing things up based on feedback and  
> dropping problematic proposals, make a release.
> 
> Alternatively we could use our original approach of vetting issues  
> one-at-a-time. But this has proven to be rather slow as it’s difficult to  
> keep everybody’s attention to prolonged periods of time.
> 
> Rintze

So the idea is to have a more forward-leaning policy on commits? That  
seems a good idea. We’re getting to a stage where changes are often  
inter-related, and it can be cumbersome to discuss proposals in  
isolation. Pre-release vetting would provide an opportunity for  
focused review.

Frank

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 1:48am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/request-for-comments/1020/4 "2011-06-15T01:48:50Z")

</div>

Maybe it would suffice to have a single development branch in each git repo  
for such proposals (people other than Frank, Bruce and me can also just fork  
if they want to create proposals). That way we wouldn’t create too much of a  
mess in the main branch.

RintzeOn Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Frank Bennett \<@Frank\_Bennett\>wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/request-for-comments/1020/5 "2011-06-15T02:01:34Z")

</div>

This post seems to be an influential discussion of an effective git  
branching model.

[http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/](http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/)

See discussion of feature branches.

Git flow is based on this:

[http://jeffkreeftmeijer.com/2010/why-arent-you-using-git-flow/](http://jeffkreeftmeijer.com/2010/why-arent-you-using-git-flow/)

It’s not exactly related to our use case, but perhaps close enough?

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 3:45pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/request-for-comments/1020/6 "2011-06-15T15:45:41Z")

</div>

So if we went this direction, it would suggest adding a main “develop” branch.

For new features, or major changes, one would then branch of  
"develop"; e.g. “my-new-feature.”

When we all approve it (by whatever process we settle on), that code  
gets merged back to “develop.”

… etc (see link above) …

This gives people flexibility to play with stuff all they want without  
messing up the main schema code.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 5:09pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/request-for-comments/1020/7 "2011-06-15T17:09:53Z")

</div>

OK, I created a “develop” branch on schema (and also on documentation,  
but had some authentication issue when trying to push it).

Bruce