Hi Docs Team,
I am requesting review on two new Pull Requests to the
#18 adds a new module explaining AsciiDoc in a uniquely Fedora context.
I listed some outside resources on asciidoctor.org for writing in
AsciiDoc, listed some frequent AsciiDoc xref snippets with some examples
in a Fedora context, and also added an explainer for how to do reusable
Is it perfect? No. But it is a lot better than what we had, and I think
it will help a lot of new writers with Fedora Docs, because this docs
repo is easier to find in the docs.fp.o repo from other Docs Team repos.
#19 is related to something that happened recently. It is a new page
that explains how front-end developers and UX designers can participate
with or improve the Fedora Docs UI. For now, there is little content in
the "For designers:" sub-menu in the nav, but it is my hope in starting
one now, it will be easier to iterate on when Real Designers™ (a.k.a.
not me) want to contribute. :)
I am excited about both, but #18 especially. It would be great to see
these get published to help new Fedora Docs writers. It would be great
if someone could review starting Monday, 31 August.
Thanks all. Have a nice weekend!
Justin W. Flory (he/him)
Hi docs team,
mattdm recently suggested we should rename the default branch of
council-docs from "master" to something else. I suggested "prod"
because I have ulterior motives.
Right now, we have separate branches for building the production and
staging docs.fp.o. This makes staging useful for testing changes to
the build system itself, but not for content. Granted, people can (and
should) test content changes locally before pushing, but for changes
that span across repos or for sharing rendered changes with someone
else for review, that becomes more challenging.
Would it be possible to configure things such that docs.stg.fp.o build
from the repos' 'stg' branches and the main docs sites build from the
'prod' branches? This way, every docs repo that gets included by
Antora can have stage and production content for "free". Then, for
example, if I made a big structural change to the Council docs, I
could do that on the stage branch so that it would be built and
visible to anyone I wanted to share it with, but the production
content would be untouched until we were ready to merge.
Would it be as simple as changing line 6 on site.yml to be 'prod' on
the prod branch and 'stg' on the stage branch? (Or better, could we
pull it from some environment variable/file/whatever?)
Assuming this is both technically possible and also desirable, would
it be possible to have the production docs site support both "master"
and "prod" as branch names to provide a migration window. Or would we
have to migrate to this model by updating the site.yml on a per-repo
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream