[CentOS-docs] Regarding GSoC project

Sat May 30 16:19:35 UTC 2015
Dougal Matthews <dougal at dougalmatthews.com>

On 29 May 2015 at 20:33, kunaal jain <kunaalus at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Over the last week, Lei and I have been researching about the review
> platform where the content submitted can be reviewed, commented, tagged and
> pushed. This will be an alternative to github pull requests interface, which
> will thus reduce our dependency on Github in case Github changes its API
> anytime in future.
> Even firefox is considering using Github as an alternative medium to receive
> contribution.
> http://gregoryszorc.com/blog/2015/01/12/utilizing-github-for-firefox-development/
> Lei made a great chart comparing the platforms.
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9sUy41_Rk3KdGl4RVhDSXZIZmc/view?usp=sharing
> So overall Bugzilla looks a great option. But there is one major flaw, we
> need to view the article submitted at each point(code review) which bugzilla
> lacks.
> The solution to this is creating a plugin for markdown previewing.
> The typical workflow might look like this:
> 1. Author writes content in markdown language.
> 2. Makes 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.
> 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.
> 8. Staff tags it, and pushes to git.centos.org.
> 9. Using git.centos.org, new website is generated and pushed.
> There are many challenging tasks in this, especially the bugzilla issue
> creation on pull request and two way comment sync. This has never been done
> before, but we looked at the API and think we can make it work. Another
> challenging task is markdown preview on bugzilla.

As a word of warning here, not all Markdown parsers and renderers are
the same. GitHub's makes a number of additions and changes that go
against the original (admittedly vague) spec. This could mean your
previews are different and may not match the documentation build. An
alternative approach would be to build the docs in CI and link to the
built version in a comment on both systems.

> Please let us know, what you think about this?
> Regards,
> Kunaal
> --
> Regards,
> Kunaal Jain
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-docs mailing list
> CentOS-docs at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs