On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 1:04 AM, kunaal jain <kunaalus at gmail.com> wrote:
> The typical workflow might look like this:
>
> 1. Author writes content in markdown language.
> 2. Makes a pull request on github.
Is this github.com or, a git instance off CentOS infrastructure?
Authors are supposed to make a pull request on github.
> 3. Corresponding to the pull request a issue is created on bugzilla.
> 4. CentOS staff can either review the article on github pull request, or on
> bugzilla.
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.
Thanks for your suggestion!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.
> 5. Comments are two way synced.
> 6. At each point the article can be viewed on bugzilla, using an extension
> we propose to make.
> 7. After many iterations of commenting, and improving, article is finally
> accepted.
Have you considered review workflow tools like Gerrit?
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.
> 8. Staff tags it, and pushes to git.centos.org.
> 9. Using git.centos.org, new website is generated and pushed.
'Website' or, is the content rendered from the version control (g.c.o)
and pushed live?
The content is rendered from g.c.o. built into HTML files using static site generator tool like jekyll.