Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add sections for evals and use cases; cite evals appropriately; update methods considered table #50

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Nov 2, 2021

Conversation

dhh1128
Copy link
Contributor

@dhh1128 dhh1128 commented Sep 7, 2021

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
dhh1128 and others added 3 commits September 8, 2021 09:24
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
@dhh1128 dhh1128 changed the title Add sections for evals and use cases; cite evals appropriate; update methods considered table Add sections for evals and use cases; cite evals appropriately; update methods considered table Sep 8, 2021
@jandrieu
Copy link
Contributor

jandrieu commented Sep 20, 2021

@dhh1128 Looks like we have an error in the CI/CD tooling. It is likely because of a couple of missing <ol> tags (at least I had that problem on the registry PR and your PR likely has the same cruft). You can probably identify the error location by finding a </p> tag followed by a <li> tag. At least that helped with the instances I had fixed.

Alternatively, merge in #49 and pull main back into your PR. That would probably clean it up with less likelihood of a merge conflict.

@TallTed
Copy link
Member

TallTed commented Sep 20, 2021

@jandrieu -- You need to codefence the HTML tags in your comment, to make them visible to readers.

@rxgrant
Copy link
Contributor

rxgrant commented Oct 29, 2021

This is stumping the editors and blocking other merges and action right now.

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@TallTed TallTed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe my two suggested changes will resolve the build error, and remove a tiny errant snippet of text.

@jandrieu jandrieu requested a review from rxgrant November 2, 2021 18:28
Copy link
Contributor

@rxgrant rxgrant left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

changes look good.

@jandrieu
Copy link
Contributor

jandrieu commented Nov 2, 2021

This looks good. Merging.

@jandrieu jandrieu merged commit 6002d4c into w3c:main Nov 2, 2021
@jandrieu
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like the edits from this merge got smushed.

@rxgrant Let's review and figure out how to get the evaluation citations and related metadata back into the document.

@jandrieu
Copy link
Contributor

@rxgrant and I found that this was a synchronization problem between the main branch, the github.io version, and the /TR version.

We removed the hardcoded publication date (August 26) from the index.html and that eventually got us an updated github.io page, but the TR has not yet updated.

We're going to give it another day to see if the TR updates, but we are also baffled as to why the date in the html would prevent github pages from rendering a new .io page. When we removed the date, it didn't just give us the correct date, it actually pulled in the latest version. How and why that happens seems to be buried in the github pages configuration.

@iherman Can you advise about how we should be doing this? I think we aren't quite configured right for auto publishing and I expect our hack of removing the date may not be the "right" way.

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Nov 17, 2021

@iherman Can you advise about how we should be doing this? I think we aren't quite configured right for auto publishing and I expect our hack of removing the date may not be the "right" way.

There seem to be some system problems. I have updated the github action script but that did not solve all the issues. See my mail sent to the powers to be (I cc-d you because I was not sure that you can access that archive).

Sigh...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants