On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:41 PM, 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
This is not github pages, this is the builtin wiki, but we can use this for developing content. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Devel mailing list >>>> de...@ovirt.org >>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Users mailing list >>> Users@ovirt.org >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
