On 18/03/2011 12:39, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
On 18 March 2011 11:22, Holly Cummins<[email protected]> wrote:
zoe slattery<[email protected]> wrote on 03/18/2011 10:28:32 AM:
+1 I would like to see committers elected because of doc contributions
[cut for length]
The downside of this is that Alasdair's and Charles's experience of
submitting and applying a patch doesn't seem to have been very smooth.
It's hard to say if that's because the CMS process just doesn't work well
for patches, or they just did it wrong. :)
If the patch process genuinely doesn't work so well for doc contributions
we may decide that facilitating doc contributions is more important than
facilitating new committers - or we may not, of course, since enabling
doc-driven committers sounds like a good thing to me as well.
It's very easy for committers to make changes using CMS, but for
contributors (inlcuding those who don't have an ASF id) they have to
check out the site, configure the build env, build it (instructions on
our site) and submit a patch.
This is true and I can see its a bit of a PITA.
Then the committer applying the patch
also needs the full site checked out and configured to build.
This is not true. You should just be able to check out, apply patch,
commit and use the CMS tooling to verify.
I think
that process could be improved on, but that would need changes in CMS
a) to allow anyone to make changes in a sandbox and create a patch for
a committer b) for a committer to be able to take that patch and apply
it.
So I don't think the patch process doesn't work (unless you can
elaborate), just that it's long winded.
(If we can identify a better way of submitting patches, of course, what
we'll need is someone to submit an patch for our docs pages with
instructions. :) )
Holly
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
