crunch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gabriel Reid <gabriel.r...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Editing the Crunch User Guide
Date Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:40:43 GMT
Ok, maybe we should go with the same kind of thing as with the core
code - post a patch for big changes, and just go for it if it's just a
little spelling or punctuation fix or similar. My main concern is/was
not getting into major merge conflicts if there are two people doing
writing a section at the same time, which seems very unlikely given
the excellent state that the guide is already in.


On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Josh Wills <jwills@cloudera.com> wrote:
> I'm still good with commit-then-review for the website, although we have
> slowly moved towards more reviews of code over time as the project has
> grown.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Gabriel Reid <gabriel.reid@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Josh (and others),
>>
>> I was wondering if you had any preferences on how we go about handling
>> changes to the User Guide (and website content in general). Is there a
>> preference to go with a review-then-commit workflow, or
>> commit-then-review (or something else)?
>>
>> I'm assuming that at this point that there won't be any huge major
>> additions to it, but I figure it wouldn't be bad to have a general
>> agreement on how we want to handle editing it. FWIW, up until now the
>> (very minor) changes I've made have just been going straight in
>> without any review.
>>
>> - Gabriel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Director of Data Science
> Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com>
> Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>

Mime
View raw message