On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 1:20:07 PM UTC-3, Terry Brown wrote: > > > I disagree. We need to define the canonical source for the tips, or > violate DRY. If we're using GitHub because of its markdown editing / > preview, I think by default GitHub is the canonical source. > > I agree with Terry: setting up a well defined workflow here would be prefered to avoid duplicating efforts and time waste. And if it can be automated in some way, the better: specially your time, Edward, must be valued as gold! ;-)
Personally, I would prefer a more "leonine" workflow based in .md files which can be stored in a dedicated folder in the main leo-editor repository and simply "harvested" by Leo using its own weapons: a .leo file with an @path node or similar... but I understand that such a workflow would make contributions harder, so the current idea of Edward to use GitHub issues I think it's great. If a tip needs revision (they will), where does that happen? It could be done in many ways, but one could be storing the "closed_at" date somehow in our "harvested" copy and comparing it with the current "closed_at" date of the tip at each harvest. To make a revision, we should simply *Reopen *the issue at GitHub and *Close *it again when the new text is in place. What do you think? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
