Re: [CentOS-docs] discussions around upstream documentation
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Christoph Galuschka wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Am 11.04.2016 um 18:18 schrieb Jim Perrin: >> >> There is a Fedora Activity Day >> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAD_Documentation_2016 ) centered around >> documentation, where I'm going to see what can be done about the state >> of centos documentation from upstream sources. >> >> Most of the tooling for documentation for these two groups is centered >> around git. For the most part, our documentation currently lives in the >> wiki, and has a fairly high barrier to new contributors. >> >> Would the regulars who contribute on the wiki consider consider >> supporting a migration to a git based documentation workflow? > > > I would be fine with such a move. Me too. >> I think this would help lower the barrier to contribution by allowing >> new contributors to submit a pull request or patch for documentation >> rather than join a mailing list, request access, etc. > > > Agreed. Similar to what we do with t_functional tests. >> >> >> What are the thoughts or concerns about this sort of workflow change? >> >> >> >> > all the best > Christoph > -- > Christoph Galuschka > CentOS-QA-Team member | IRC: tigalch > > ___ > CentOS-docs mailing list > CentOS-docs@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] status of https://wiki.centos.org/Documentation
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote: > On 22/03/16 10:21, François Cami wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Manuel Wolfshant >> wrote: >>> On 03/22/2016 09:30 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I was having a look at that page, and was wondering what we can do for >>>> point #3 (Manuals and other documentation) >>>> As we have no real content for CentOS 6 and 7 , my idea was just to >>>> explain in one line that (while technically not the CentOS >>>> documentation) , almost all the points coming from uptream documentation >>>> ( - except for subscription manager - ) can be applied to CentOS and so >>>> having link from that section to >>>> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/ >>>> >>>> Ideas, thoughts, comments ? >>>> >>> +1 for that. it's long overdue. >> >> -1 from me, because access.redhat.com documentation contains support >> statements which are irrelevant to the CentOS project. I'd very much >> like to avoid generating (more) confusion in potential users. > > Yes, but I was mentioning documentation about how to > deploy/configure/maintain it, but you have a point : so the note would > need to mention that everything regarding support channels and > subscriptions should be considered "not applicable" to CentOS > It's true that it can confuse potential users, but not having > documentation at all doesn't help, and from what I see in #centos or > forums, people are already pointed to the only existing doc, aka the > upstream ones My concern is not with users technically savvy enough to connect to Freenode channels, because these sort-of know the difference between community projects and enterprise, supported products. With that said, provided we find a way to mention how to mention that unambiguously, I'm ok with it. François ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] status of https://wiki.centos.org/Documentation
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > On 03/22/2016 09:30 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I was having a look at that page, and was wondering what we can do for >> point #3 (Manuals and other documentation) >> As we have no real content for CentOS 6 and 7 , my idea was just to >> explain in one line that (while technically not the CentOS >> documentation) , almost all the points coming from uptream documentation >> ( - except for subscription manager - ) can be applied to CentOS and so >> having link from that section to >> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/ >> >> Ideas, thoughts, comments ? >> > +1 for that. it's long overdue. -1 from me, because access.redhat.com documentation contains support statements which are irrelevant to the CentOS project. I'd very much like to avoid generating (more) confusion in potential users. François ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] wiki editing rights request
Hi, I'd like wiki editing rights to create/update the StorageSIG Ceph pages. My username is FrançoisCami and the subject of my future Wiki contributions is going to be Ceph (what else?). Proposed locations: https://wiki.centos.org/Fran%C3%A7oisCami https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Storage/ https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Storage/Ceph https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Storage/Ceph/CI https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Storage/ceph-Quickstart Regards, François ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs