Adding infra which I forgot to add from the beginning On 7 January 2017 at 02:44, Jakub Niedermertl <jnied...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Roy Golan <rgo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 4 January 2017 at 12:17, Maor Lipchuk <mlipc...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Daniel Erez <de...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Roy Golan <rgo...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I'm getting the feeling I'm not alone in this, authoring and > publishing > >>>> a wiki page isn't as used to be for long time. > >>>> > >>>> I want to suggest a bit lighter workflow: > >>>> > >>>> 1. Everyone can merge their page - (it's a wiki) > >>>> Same as with (public and open) code, no one has the motivation to > >>>> publish a badly written > >>>> wiki page under their name. True, it can have an impact, but not as > >>>> with broken code > >>>> > >>> > >>> +1. > >>> Moreover, I think we shouldn't block any merging. Instead, wiki > >>> maintainers could act afterwards and revert when needed (Wikipedia > style). > >>> Another issue is that (sadly) unlike mediawiki, we need to wait for > wiki > >>> publish after a change. So I'd suggest to build and publish the wiki at > >>> least once a day. Any way, I think we should make the workflow much > more > >>> intuitive and pleasant like the previous wiki - i.e. much less > restrictive > >>> than manipulating a code base. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> 2. Use Page-Status marker > >>>> The author first merges the draft. Its now out there and should be > >>>> updated as time goes and its > >>>> status is DRAFT. Maintainers will come later and after review would > >>>> change the status to > >>>> PUBLISH. That could be a header in on the page: > >>>> --- > >>>> page status: DRAFT/PUBLISH > >>>> --- > >>>> > >>>> Simple I think, and should work. > >>>> > >> > >> +1 > >> The effort of maintaining the wiki today compare to how it used to be > >> before is much more cumbersome and problematic. > >> I think we can learn a lot from wikipedia workflow, > >> It is a much more inviting process where anyone can change the content > >> easily. > >> I'm not saying we should let any anonymous user change the wiki but even > >> if we make it easier in house we can achieve much more informative > reliable > >> and updated wiki. > >> > > > > > > > > I really think Github Pages is a perfect fit and an alternative to my > first > > suggestion. see > > https://github.com/oVirt/ovirt-site/wiki/Why-aren't-we-using-this%3F > > +1 > Github wiki would allow us instant publishing, review after after > publishing, it works purely in browser (no need for running local ruby > server) and it's a service that doesn't require any maintenance form > our side. > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Devel mailing list > >>>> de...@ovirt.org > >>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Users mailing list > >>> us...@ovirt.org > >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > >>> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Users mailing list > > us...@ovirt.org > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > >
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra