Thanks Cameron, good points about adding reasons and explanation for my suggestions. I will do that.
I have modified the template to remove uDig specific references and make it a bit easier to scan. I did keep a lot of the procedural content however, so that there are examples for the Writing Tips. It's a tricky one, and I'll be keen to see what we do over in The Good Docs Project about this issue. I see a flaw in my GitHub process. My GPSPrune PR has been merged without the comments being actioned, and because of the "Review" line I added to the file, it makes it look as if the file has been reviewed and improved. Perhaps I do need to make changes within the file instead after all. I might try that for Mapbender and MapSlicer and see how that process goes. I'm still trying to iron out the flow. Thanks Felicity On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 8:51 PM Cameron Shorter <cameron.shor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Felicity, comments on your first feedback: > > * I like your use of a simple pull request with a reviewer and a bunch > of comments. While clumsy, I think it is the best process for collecting > this type of feedback. > > * I like the way you are bullet pointing out suggested changes. > > * I think it would be helpful to provide reasons for some of your > suggestions, typically "in line with ..." or "to improve readability" or > "in line with our style guide" (if we were to select a preferred style > guide). > > * I like the idea of a template quickstart, but think it should not be > tied to a specific project. As Erin picked up in the good docs project: > 1. It implies favouritism, 2. It becomes out of date when the project > updates. (Notably this udig quickstart is out of date, referencing an > old version of the osgeolive release.) > > On 25/10/19 1:34 pm, Felicity Brand wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am excited to say that I have finally completed the first QuickStart > > review as a proof of concept to test the process. > > > > Activityworkshop, thank you for being the guinea pig. > > > > I have created a PR on GitHub: > > https://github.com/OSGeo/OSGeoLive-doc/pull/515 > > And I have created its partner ticket in trac: > > https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeolive/ticket/2187#ticket > > > > The action items for the document owner are in a comment on the Pull > > Request. I had hoped to be able to comment on things in context, but > > GitHub doesn't let you work that way, so all the review comments are > > together and I have formatted them using markdown. I hope it is easy > > enough to follow. > > > > I'm not too sure about the next part of the process. Theoretically, my > > PR doesn't need to get merged. Document owners will need to make the > > edits and then have their own PR approved. @Cameron Shorter can you > > think of a way this might work? @activityworkshop, please let me know > > what the experience is like at your end. > > > > Thank you > > Felicity > > -- > Cameron Shorter > Technology Demystifier > Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant > > M +61 (0) 419 142 254 > _______________________________________________ osgeolive mailing list osgeolive@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeolive
