Base Handbook progress

I have completed editing the preface and chapter 1. These have been uploaded to the Draft folder. (Is this the correct place, or what would be a better place to put it?) I have also created a Guide status spreadsheet based upon the Calc version. I have added one added column: Replace screenshots. This has been placed in the Base Handbook > 6.2 folder similar to where the guide status spreadsheet was placed in Calc.

My next project is to make necessary changes in two of the example databases that were discussed in the two documents I have uploaded. I plan to edit one chapter at a time, and as I do so, I will be also making editing each mentioned example databases.

In case anyone is interested, I have also created and uploaded ePUB versions of the preface and chapter 1. They are also in the draft folder. These are only examples of what is possible with this format; when each document is ready for publishing, then they have to be modified based upon any changes are made.

Dan

Hi Dan

Documents for review should be in the Feedback folder.
I moved them there for you.

Kind regards, Kees

Dan Lewis schreef op 06.12.2019 17:12:

It makes more sense to me for updates (or new chapters) to go in Drafts,
reviews in Feedback, and finished chapters in Published (the way we did it
in ODFAuthors), instead of the way we’ve been doing it in NextCloud.

Jean

I will add some points about the Documentation NextCloud structure and how things have become somewhat confused.

When it was decided move from ODF Authors to NextCloud, I set up the NextCloud directory structure along similar lines to the one we had on ODF Authors. Although it was undecided if we needed a Published folder in the NextCloud structure. It was my understanding that our workflow would be also be very similar to Jean's original workflow diagram https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Workflow.png

It was about this time that we started work on the Calc guide and somebody arbitrarily decided that copies of the 4.1 guide should be deposited in the 6.0 Drafts folder. From then on things got more and more confusing, especially for new contributors.

I agree with Jean and would advocate that we return to the original workflow. Other opinions?

Dave

All,

I tend to agree with the thought that dropping first drafts into the
Feedback folder rather than the Drafts folder isn't very intuitive.

But more importantly, when I joined the team earlier in the year, I really
struggled to understand the in-use workflow because it didn't match the
documented workflow (i.e. Jean's diagram). I think this is a really
important consideration with regards to transparency of our procedures.

I would be in favour of reverting to the previously established and
documented workflow, especially if it wasn't really broken in the first
place.

Regards,

Steve

Today, I have also  completed my work on Example_Sports.odb, so it is also uploaded to Base Handbook > 6.2 > Supplemental. I also listed it in the Guide status spreadsheet. (I liked how easy it was to do this using Next Cloud while signed in to it.) I should note that I think Supplemental is a good name for the folder which will be containing more than a dozen databases which provide the examples of databases discussed by the Base Handbook.

Dan

I have started a new thread for discussion about workflow, folder
structure, etc. Let‘s move further notes on that topic and leave this
thread for Dan’s Base Handbook updates.

Jean

Hi

Other opinions: Yes I have one radically different.

Rationale: the current workflow and available resources is incompatible
(IMHO) with speed of software development, the gap between software
release and Guide release is very hard to close.

I prefer a dynamic "time-release" of the guides, as with the software.
That means publish "as-is" at time of release, whatever is available,
ideally synch'ing with the software release. Each update will be a
"Revision number".

I foresee usage of master documents to compile the book periodically and
quickly, and chapters updated by trusted Authors. One coordinator per
guide. Full usage of track changes and comments.

A new challenge for sure, but I propose to select one of our guides and
test the new workflow.

Olivier

What about the Base Handbook? It can not be translated until after the German version has been published. This is taking more time for version 6.2 because of the amount of translation required. Later versions should take a much shorter time because only the changes or added text will have to be translated. (This is what OmegaT does very well.)

Dan

I have copied this to the Workflow thread and written my comments there. -
Jean

Hello Dan

This particular case is a translation job, which depends on the source
book in German. The procedure I suggest is for authoring.

Translating is a job that follows publication. I understand that
managing micro translations jobs is a challenge. For translation, I
imagine each community to take a snapshot (branch?) and produce a book,
much like the software is released.

Regards
Olivier
PS. Of course, errors and mistakes found while producing the book can be
patched upstream in "master".