Reviewing documentation pull requests

[Justin Obara]

I'd argue that it would be a good opportunity to ensure correctness, as well as proper presentation and readability, of our documentation by reviewing it before it made it's way up to master.

Thanks
Justin
 
On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Antranig Basman <Antranig.Basman at colorado.edu> wrote:

> I think that we had agreed that those with commit access to the documentation would be able to to push/merge changes without formality. This preserves the existing semantic that we have for edits made to our old documentation in the wiki. I believe this is the model Colin is referring to by the "simple and open process".
> 
> Cheers,
> Antranig
> 
> On 02/06/2014 14:05, Justin Obara wrote:
>> I agree that the committers for Infusion-Docs should not necessarily be the same as those for Infusion. We should probably keep to a similar branch, pull request, merge (with logs) workflow.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Justin
>> 
>> On May 30, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Colin Clark <colinbdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Anastasia and all,
>>> 
>>> I think it’s worthwhile to have a lightweight code review process for documentation pull requests. I’ve enjoyed following the way you’ve all been working so far. I think it would be great to ensure a member of our documentation working group reviews pull requests as they come in, and recruit the developers who worked on a particular feature to also lend a hand with the documentation review process.
>>> 
>>> In my opinion, and this is open to debate, the people who can edit and review and push documentation changes to our documentation repo need not be committers to the Infusion repository—we should have a more simple and open process for this. I believe we can create a distinct team in Github to enable more open push access to the repo if we desire.
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Colin
>>> 
>>> On May 12, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Cheetham, Anastasia <acheetham at ocadu.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Michelle, Simon and Antranig,
>>>> 
>>>> We've been making great progress porting documentation to markdown. We're now faced with the question of who reviews pull requests for documentation. We never really discussed this.
>>>> 
>>>> Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Anastasia Cheetham     Inclusive Design Research Centre
>>>> acheetham at ocadu.ca           Inclusive Design Institute
>>>>                                       OCAD University
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________________
>>>> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>>>> see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________________
>>> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>>> see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>> 
>> _______________________________________________________
>> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
>> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>> see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work