On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Roy Golan <rgolan@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 4 January 2017 at 12:17, Maor Lipchuk <mlipchuk@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Daniel Erez <derez@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Roy Golan <rgolan@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

+1
Github wiki would allow us instant publishing, review after after
publishing, it works purely in browser (no need for running local ruby
server) and it's a service that doesn't require any maintenance form
our side.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>> Devel@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
>