Docs.krita.org has been switched to sphinx!

[Peter Bowmar]

Hi Emmet,

I did a "test" edit of the Readme (with Wolthera's help via IRC) and now
that I've been through it once, I found it quite easy. However, I'm
familiar with Git and .rst (Sphinx) formatting.

While I do wish the committing of the "patches" was a bit easier (at work
we have a Git "on-push" script that automatically creates a pull request)
overall I didn't find it a problem. Hopefully I'll have time to do a lot
more proofreading.

As you say, it doesn't matter your proficiency as a writer, everyone needs
their writings proof-read, especially me :)

I'm not familiar with the "old" system but the new one (once I understood
it) is fairly painless, though could be streamlined a bit perhaps over time.

Cheers,

Peter B

On 28 May 2018 at 00:36, Emmet O'Neill <emmetoneill.pdx at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey there. I have to say, the new docs tech seems really great so far and
> I love the look and layout.
>
> Well, my English is not perfect, and there's still a ton of pages which
>> have not
>> been formally proofread, so I am worried about those pages too.
>>
>
> Don't sell yourself short! Your English seems really great. At any rate,
> very few writers are "perfect" even in their native language, which is why
> even the pros use editors. I'm certainly not a professional writer or
> editor myself, but nevertheless I'd be happy to proofread anything that's
> sent my way.
>
> From my limited experience with it, my main issue with the *old* docs
> system (and, most likely, the main issue with the changes that I made :S)
> was that it wasn't a great system for planning changes which could be first
> submitted to an editor or reviewer for approval. There was a line somewhere
> or another about making "bold" edits, and the system gives the average user
> the ability to do so, but it really wasn't the *encouraged* way to
> contribute in the end. I agree with boud that sending documentation
> "patches" via Phabricator (or something similar) for review by the main
> documentation editors (a.k.a.: the people with push privileges) would be a
> good system. Senior editors like you would have push access for direct
> control, but even if you did want someone else to proofread your stuff
> before you push it, you could still submit it for peer review. Something
> with that kind of structure and hierarchy might make it less frustrating
> for reviewers and reviewees alike.
>
> Anyway, great job on all this so far.
> - Emmet
>



-- 
Cheers,

Peter B
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kimageshop/attachments/20180528/1721510f/attachment-0001.html>