On 11 January 2017 at 17:06, Marc Dequènes (Duck) <d...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Quack, > > On 01/08/2017 06:39 PM, Barak Korren wrote: > > On 8 January 2017 at 10:17, Roy Golan <rgo...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Adding infra which I forgot to add from the beginning > > Thanks. > > > I don't think this is an infra issue, more of a community/working > > procedures one. > > I do thin it is. We are involved in the tooling, for their maintenance, > for documenting where things are, for suggesting better solutions, > ensuring security… > > > On the one hand, the developers need a place where they create and > > discuss design documents and road maps. That please needs to be as > > friction-free as possible to allow developers to work on the code > > instead of on the documentation tools. > > As for code, I think there is need for review, even more for design > documents, so I don't see why people are bothered by PRs, which is a > tool they already know fairly well. > > For people with few git knowledge, the GitHub web interface allows to > edit files. > > > On the other hand, the user community needs a good, up to date source > > of information about oVirt and how to use it. > > Yes, this official entry point and it needs to be clean. > > > Having said the above, I don't think the site project's wiki is the > > best place for this. The individual project mirrors on GitHub may be > > better for this > > We could indeed split the technical documentation. If people want to > experiment with the GH wiki pages, I won't interfere. > > I read several people in this thread really miss the old wiki, so I > think it is time to remember why we did not stay in paradise. I was not > there at the time, but I know the wiki was not well maintained. People > are comparing our situation to the MediaWiki site, but the workforce is > nowhere to be compared. There is already no community manager, and noone > is in charge of any part really, whereas Mediawiki has people in charge > of every corner of the wiki. Also they developed tools over years to > monitor, correct, revert… and we don't have any of this. So without any > process then it was a total mess. More than one year later there was > still much cleanup to do, and having contributed to it a little bit, I > fear a sentimental rush to go back to a solution that was abandoned. > > Having a header telling if this is a draft or published is far from > being sufficient. If noone cares you just pile up content that gets > obsolete, then useless, then misleading for newcomers. You may prefer > review a posteriori, but in this case you need to have the proper tool > to be able to search for things to be reviewed, and a in-content > pseudo-header is really not an easy way to get a todolist. > > As for the current builder, it checks every minute for new content to > build. The current tool (Middleman) is a bit slow, and the machine is > not ultra speedy, but even in the worst case it should not take more > than half an hour to see the published result. So I don't know why > someone suggested to build "at least once a day". There is also an > experimentation to improve this part. > > So to sum up: > - the most needed thing here is not a tool but people in charge to > review the content (additions, cleanup old things, ask devs to update > some missing part…), this should also allow for faster publishing > - I'm not against changing tool, just do not forget what you loose in > the process, and the migration pain > - I think free editing without workflow in our specific case is not > gonna work because we do not have the needed workforce for things to > auto-correct > > \_o< > > What do you suggest then? how can infra help with this now? fwiw I don't care only about 'developers', I do want to process to be better.
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra