John Hendy <jw.he...@gmail.com> writes: >>> No. Someone needs to carefully check he can exports his local clone >>> of worg.git with the new exporter, fix the wrong syntax, then commit >>> it. This surely deserves a public branch of Worg, which people can >>> hack together.
>> We need a volunteer who is willing to coordinate the conversion >> of Worg to the new exporter. This is an important task. Dogfooding >> Worg to the new exporter will be a good way to find remaining bugs >> in the parser/exporter setup. >> >> This task would entail: [...] >> 3. Organizing contributors who will look at one page after the other >> and implementing any changes needed to make the page export (not yet >> publish) cleanly with the new exporter. In this way we need to walk >> through all Worg files, and someone needs to keep the tabs on this. > > Not sure we totally need to organize this. I'm wondering about > something like an "editor" property in the file from #2. Contributors > could self-assign by adding their name to that property in the tracker > file and then push. Perhaps an agenda view or simply column view could > quickly show who is assigned to what file? >> Any takers? I don't know if this would put a huge work load on somebody who contributed *much* content to Worg, but otherwise I would propose for this step that all authors of Worg articles/pages take care of their own pages. In my case that would be e.g. half a dozen of pages, not that much of a problem. Once most Worg authors have fixed their own pages, another round of fixing the (few?) remaining pages by some volunteers could be started. Just my 2cents -- cheers, Thorsten
