Minor correction in terminology:"other team members might wish to include some additional
identification."Should have read:"other team members might wish to include some additional *oralternative* identification."On 15/09/2020 16:22, DaveB wrote:Hi Peter,Sounds good. There are a couple of things we need to
clarify/finalise;Would you be kind enough to put forward a proposal for the file
namingconvention to be used for the new workflow/structure? I would be
happywith something like "GS7001 Introducing LibreOffice #1.odt" but
you andother team members might wish to include some additional
identification.It would be good if the team can reach consensus on this asap.The 7.0 template needs to be finalised. I will raise a separate
threadabout this.Officially Retired? Good grief, I don't know how I ever found time
foreveryday work :)))Best RegardsDave-------- Original Message --------From: Peter Schofield [mailto:psauthor@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020, 13:32 UTCTo: DaveBCc: LibreOfficeSubject: [libreoffice-documentation] Proposal for a change to theNextCloud workflowHello DaveI shall trial the new folders for th Draw Guide 7.0 having just
created the skeleton of the guide. In other words, creating
chapters using the 7.0 template and posting in basic
information.It is not so onerous doing the two guides. More than half go the
Draw Guide is already done. It is called the Impress Guide. Just
have to check all screen shots to make sure they are OK for the
Draw GuideIt keeps me busy now being officially retired.RegardsPeter Schofieldpsauthor@gmail.comOn 15 Sep 2020, at 12:46, DaveBuser.net@posteo.netwrote:Hi Peter and Team,My responses are given in-line.-------- Original Message --------From: Peter Schofield [mailto:psauthor@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020, 07:50 UTCTo: DaveBCc: LibreOfficeSubject: [libreoffice-documentation] Proposal for a change to
theNextCloud workflowHello Dave and SamanthaI am with you and agree to the proposed changes, despite
having slight disagreement about folders.That's good to know. I am sure we can find a way to resolve
smalldisagreements.Work in Progress is definitely the
best name for a working folder. Archive folder fits the bill
perfectly.WIP (Work in Progress) seems to be a more accurate description
of thefolder's purpose and I can think of no good reason to change
the Archivefolder name.File naming is the only thing that
bugs me. Adding the date into the filename is not necessary
and does make it cumbersome.As I said in my reply to Sam, I am comfortable with whatever
file namingconvention the team reaches consensus on.Adding a version number (01,02, etc)
to the filename would be insurance IF someone forgets to
move old files into Archive.Sure. Each filename being being unique is the only thing I
consider tobe important. How that unique identity is defined is for the
team toagree upon.As I am already working on th Impress
Guide as a whole, I suppose I have editorial control???Also, I am starting to work on the Draw Guide, which, in
theory, I also have editorial control???The Draw Guide and Impress Guide are very similar and I am
swapping information between the two guides.Since you have taken on the (IMO somewhat onerous) task of
almostsingle-handedly rewriting those guides, I doubt that anyone
wouldquestion that you should have editorial control of those
guides.I have been asked to take on the role of "Guide Coordinator"
for version7 of the Getting Started Guide, but I have no intention (or
ability) tosingle-handedly rewrite all the chapters for that guide. I was
veryimpressed by Steve Fanning's management of the Calc Guide, but
I doubtthat I will be able to make the same level of commitment to
GettingStarted Guide. More on this point in the next few days.RegardsPeter Schofieldpsauthor@gmail.comBest RegardsDaveOn 14 Sep 2020, at 21:09, DaveBuser.net@posteo.netwrote:Hi Sam,Many thanks for your input. My responses are given in-line
with thepoints in your original message.On 12/09/2020 21:03, Samantha Hamilton wrote:I think ultimately this is a
discussion about versioning and collaborationin a program (NextCloud) that is not a collaborative
version control site.I think that simplifying the folder structure would be
helpful to organizethe iterations of a document, but it would also mean
that the file namingconvention would be very important for versioning.Let's move away from the unnecessary complications of file
naming andversioning. The only important point is that each edit of
a chapter fileis given a unique file name. If having other identifying
characters inthe file name is what the team wants, I am fine with that.<br>It doesn't matter if this is the first draft of a chapter,
or the 50thedited review. The file is uploaded to the Feedback/Work
in Progressfolder and if a previous copy of that chapter file exists
in theFeedback/Work in Progress folder, that previous copy is
IMMEDIATELYmoved to the Archive folder. At any one time there will
only ever be one(last edited) copy of any chapter file in the
Feedback/Work In Progressfolder of any book and for anyone wishing to review,
revise or otherwiseedit that chapter this is the file they take.As far as my understanding goes,
we [would] have a process like this:1. A new/original document is made by a Creator (this
person has editorial‘control’ over said document)I seem to have missed the memo about "editorial control".Does this mean:* If I am the first to start work on a chapter for a new
version of aguide, do I get "editorial control" for just that chapter
or allchapters for that version of the guide?* If I take on the role of Guide Coordinator, do I get
"editorialcontrol" of that guide?2. When ready for review it is put
into the “Feedback” (or “Work in<br>
Progress”) folder, with a naming scheme such as:<br>*guide name abbreviationversion
numberchapter number_creatorsinitials_date of submission.extension**For example:* *IG706_AB_1Sept2020.odt*It's unclear what benefit would be gained from this file
namingconvention. The file will already have a modified date and
theauthor/reviewer is already identified in the status sheet
and the"Contributors" section of the chapter document. As I said
above, "Ifhaving other identifying characters in the file name is
what the teamwants, I am fine with that".3. A Reviewer downloads a copy
(leaving a copy in the folder) and performsedits, reviews, etc.4. When complete, the Reviewer uploads the newly edited
file back to thesame “Feedback” folder,Yes and the reviewer IMMEDIATELY moves any previous copy
to the Archivestorage folder.with a naming convention such as:=*guide name abbreviationversion
numberchapter number_creatorsinitials_reviewers initials_date of
submission.extension**For example: IG706_AB_CD_2Sept2020.odt*Please see my previous comments regarding file naming.5. The Creator accepts, confirms,
or rejects changes as necessary, thensaves this to the “Feedback” folder as a new file, with
a naming schemesuch as:*guide name abbreviationversion
numberchapter number_creatorsinitials_date of submission.extension**For example: IG706_AB_3Sept2020.odt*See my previous comments about "editorial control".6. At the end of this cycle, this
single folder would contain 3 versions ofthe created file. And would look like:*IG706_AB_1Sept2020.odt**IG706_AB_CD_2Sept2020.odt**IG706_AB_3Sept2020.odt*No. My earlier comment: "At any one time there will only
ever be one(last edited) copy of any chapter file in the
Feedback/Work In Progressfolder of any book". All other draft and review copies
will already bein the Archive storage folder.And then we repeat the process.
All email messages stay the same, and thestatus spreadsheet stays the same. This would mean that
until a chapter ispublished we all have access to all previous copies,
organized by date, andwith contributor identification.My proposal makes no reference to changing anything other
than thedirectory structure and the workflow on NextCloud. At all
times everyone of us has access to every file in the Documentation
NextCloudinstance and my proposal will do nothing to change that.Then the files go to the Archives?No. The Archive sub-directory would be a continuous backup
store for allprevious copies.Dave, is this the process that you
are thinking of?It seems I did a really poor job of documenting my
proposal.Or am I misunderstanding the use
of the Archive folder?There is nothing special about the sub-directory having
the nameArchive. It could just as easily be renamed Dump, Backup
or anymeaningful name and still serve the same purpose.All the best,Sam.Samantha Hamiltondarling docshttp://www.darlingdocs.comhttps://github.com/samanthahamilton[image:www.linkedin.com/in/shamilton-darlingdocs]http://www.linkedin.com/in/shamilton-darlingdocsBest RegardsDaveOn Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 8:47 AM
Useruser.net@posteo.netwrote:Hi Peter,I am not particularly concerned about the naming of
files, my only realinterest is that there is a simple straight forward
and reliable way toidentify the last edition of the file and where a
previous edition ofthat file exists, it can easily be researched and/or
recovered.All files with any name difference automatically
acquire a modifieddate, so identification is extremely simple. Inclusion
of the authorinitials serves no real worthwhile purpose, this
identification isalready taken care of in the status sheet and the
contributors sectionof every guide chapter. Part of the reasoning behind
my suggestion thatwe all identify our initials to names on the status
sheets.If we had even a dozen or more regular contributors
then a rigorous filenaming regime might serve a useful purpose.Having files stored in just 2 sub-directories
(sub-folders) eliminatesany possibility of the same file being edited twice.
Personally I don'tgive a "flying fig" what name the folders are given.
If it were up to meI would name them WIP (Work In Progress) to hold the
most recentlyedited editions of the files and Archive to hold
previously editededitions. I am yet to be convinced about the value of
the Publishedfolder, but my view on that point is of no importance.<br>My one and only motivation is to simplify our
workflow. To mesimplification and ease of understanding of our
workflow is an importantpart of getting and keeping new contributors involved.
New contributorsare what the team will always need, because "creaking
old geezers" likeyou and I who understand how things were done "In the
good ol' days"won't be here forever.OK, I've had my 2c ramble. Now I will leave it to the
rest of the teamto decide what we do.Best RegardsDavePS. I am subscribed, to the list so the private mail
is unnecessary :)-------- Original Message --------From: Peter Schofield [mailto:psauthor@gmail.com]Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020, 10:38 UTCTo: DaveBCc: LibreOfficeSubject: [libreoffice-documentation] Proposal for a
change to theNextCloud workflowHello DaveAnother thought to help in keeping track of files
and this comes fromthe day when I used to earn money in tech writing.First draft of a file and its filename use a
sequence number and thecreator’s initials, for example
IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-01-PS.odt.First review of a file, the
reviewer adds their initials to thefilename, for example
IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-01-PS-DB.odt.Second draft of a file, the sequence number
increases changing thefilename and the creator adds their initials, for
exampleIG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-02-PS.odt.Second review of a file, the
reviewer adds their initials to thefilename, for example
IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-02-PS-DB.odt.When the file is published, the filename does not
have a sequence numberor any initials added, for example
IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects.odt.This does give a good indication of which file is
which and prevents thewrong file from being edited again. It worked very
well for me and a teamof technical writers.We will agree to disagree about folder names, but
still think Feedbackis the wrong name to use. A Published folder is a
definite.RegardsPeter Schofieldpsauthor@gmail.comOn 11 Sep 2020, at 16:18,
DaveBuser.net@posteo.netwrote:For the benefit of those who were not part of
yesterday's team meeting,or haven't yet read the minutes. I put forward a
proposal as per thesubject line of this post.A copy of my proposal is available from:https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/9FqwWK3m6Cy2zHQThe proposal has 5 points together with my
rational for the changes.If there are no reasonable objections, I propose
to start updating ourNextCloud instance on Friday, 18th. September.Best RegardsDave