<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""></pre><blockquote type="cite" class=""><pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 1:04 AM, kunaal jain <<a href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel" class="">kunaalus at gmail.com</a>> wrote:
><i class=""> The typical workflow might look like this:
</i>><i class="">
</i>><i class=""> 1. Author writes content in markdown language.
</i>><i class=""> 2. Makes a pull request on github.
</i>
Is this <a href="http://github.com" class="">github.com</a> or, a git instance off CentOS infrastructure?
</pre></blockquote><div class="">Authors are supposed to make a pull request on github.</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
><i class=""> 3. Corresponding to the pull request a issue is created on bugzilla.
</i>><i class=""> 4. CentOS staff can either review the article on github pull request, or on
</i>><i class=""> bugzilla.
</i>
I would recommend using one tool for handle inbound and review. Having
2 tools that need to be kept synchronized would add overhead that you
don't want to deal with. Also, it has the effect of puzzling
contributors.
</pre></blockquote>Thanks for your suggestion!<div class=""><br class=""><div class="">Staff will do the review only on bugzilla, but we think some contributors are only familiar with github, so we sync the comments between two platforms, so contributors don¡¯t need to leave github to finish the whole process. </div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
><i class=""> 5. Comments are two way synced.
</i>><i class=""> 6. At each point the article can be viewed on bugzilla, using an extension
</i>><i class=""> we propose to make.
</i>><i class=""> 7. After many iterations of commenting, and improving, article is finally
</i>><i class=""> accepted.
</i>
Have you considered review workflow tools like Gerrit?
</pre></blockquote><div class="">We considered Gerrit and other code review platforms. However we are handling markdown or some similar markup languages, so we plan to build the doc on a CI and let the staff review the built docs.</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
><i class=""> 8. Staff tags it, and pushes to <a href="http://git.centos.org" class="">git.centos.org</a>.
</i>><i class=""> 9. Using <a href="http://git.centos.org" class="">git.centos.org</a>, new website is generated and pushed.
</i>
'Website' or, is the content rendered from the version control (g.c.o)
and pushed live?
</pre></blockquote>The content is rendered from g.c.o. built into HTML files using static site generator tool like jekyll.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards,</div><div class="">Lei<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></body></html>