Writer Guide reviews

From what I've seen, JDlugosz is doing a great job of suggesting

improvements to the Writer Guide, but responding adequately to some of those
suggestions (especially those regarding rewriting sections) will slow down
production of the first edition quite a bit.

I suggest that we make those changes that can be done quickly, those that
are not under debate (such as terminology changes), and those that must be
done (such as updating images), then "forking" the chapters. One copy of
those files would go into the WG Planned space for later work on the more
time-consuming changes, and another copy would "reject" the time-consuming
suggestions and be moved forward through review to publication.

Hal

I should point out that it doesn't have to be reviewed by one person or all
at once.

Anyone can flip through some of a chapter and double-check and accept all
the typo fixes and formatting fixes, like stray letters that have been set
as Times New Roman and wonky margins and misspelled words. Then put it back
for someone else to look at later.

If all the easy changes are reviewed and the only thing left are subject to
discussion, then say so in the discussion thread. Note that things I've
flagged as needing work are Comments, not Changes, so they will just sit
there along for the ride until they are addressed. No need to take those
out!

As for the chapter dealing with Options, there are I think 2 or so places
where "select" was used in a sentence that was really wrong. The rest of
them, that I changed systematically, could be rejected until further
discussion. But, is my rewording any worse than the original?

--John

As you've seen, there is some definite disagreement with the use of enable/disable, so I think those changes should probably be rejected for now while we get the first edition out.

As for the more time-consuming changes, I think moving the files elsewhere with those comments, and "rejecting" them for now in the working set, would make it easier for the remaining reviewers (second proof and publication) to deal with the files. Probably not a biggie, though.

I should point out that it doesn't have to be reviewed by one person or all
at once.

Anyone can flip through some of a chapter and double-check and accept all
the typo fixes and formatting fixes, like stray letters that have been set
as Times New Roman and wonky margins and misspelled words. Then put it
back
for someone else to look at later.

If all the easy changes are reviewed and the only thing left are subject to
discussion, then say so in the discussion thread. Note that things I've
flagged as needing work are Comments, not Changes, so they will just sit
there along for the ride until they are addressed. No need to take those
out!

Comments need to be removed from the published version, if not earlier.

As for the chapter dealing with Options, there are I think 2 or so places
where "select" was used in a sentence that was really wrong. The rest of
them, that I changed systematically, could be rejected until further
discussion. But, is my rewording any worse than the original?

I'll look for places where "select" is really wrong and change those.

Hal

Hi, :slight_smile:

My 2 cents would be to leave comments in the docs on Alfresco until
they *really* are obsolete, and to always work with changes tracking
on.

Then, before we publish something on the wiki, we would clean up that
version only beforehand, leaving the instance on Alfresco with all the
comments and changes tracking.

David Nelson