Hi Sam, Many thanks for your input. My responses are given in-line with the points in your original message.
On 12/09/2020 21:03, Samantha Hamilton wrote: > I think ultimately this is a discussion about versioning and collaboration > in a program (NextCloud) that is not a collaborative version control site. > I think that simplifying the folder structure would be helpful to organize > the iterations of a document, but it would also mean that the file naming > convention would be very important for versioning. Let's move away from the unnecessary complications of file naming and versioning. The only important point is that each edit of a chapter file is given a unique file name. If having other identifying characters in the file name is what the team wants, I am fine with that. It doesn't matter if this is the first draft of a chapter, or the 50th edited review. The file is uploaded to the Feedback/Work in Progress folder and if a previous copy of that chapter file exists in the Feedback/Work in Progress folder, that previous copy is IMMEDIATELY moved 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 Progress folder of any book and for anyone wishing to review, revise or otherwise edit 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 a guide, do I get "editorial control" for just that chapter or all chapters for that version of the guide? * If I take on the role of Guide Coordinator, do I get "editorial control" of that guide? > 2. When ready for review it is put into the “Feedback” (or “Work in > Progress”) folder, with a naming scheme such as: > > *<guide name abbreviation><version number><chapter number>_<creators > initials>_<date of submission>.extension* > > *For example:* *IG706_AB_1Sept2020.odt* It's unclear what benefit would be gained from this file naming convention. The file will already have a modified date and the author/reviewer is already identified in the status sheet and the "Contributors" section of the chapter document. As I said above, "If having other identifying characters in the file name is what the team wants, I am fine with that". > 3. A Reviewer downloads a copy (leaving a copy in the folder) and performs > edits, reviews, etc. > > 4. When complete, the Reviewer uploads the newly edited file back to the > same “Feedback” folder, Yes and the reviewer IMMEDIATELY moves any previous copy to the Archive storage folder. > with a naming convention such as: > *<guide name abbreviation><version number><chapter number>_<creators > initials>_<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, then > saves this to the “Feedback” folder as a new file, with a naming scheme > such as: > > *<guide name abbreviation><version number><chapter number>_<creators > initials>_<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 of > the 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 Progress folder of any book". All other draft and review copies will already be in the Archive storage folder. > And then we repeat the process. All email messages stay the same, and the > status spreadsheet stays the same. This would mean that until a chapter is > published we all have access to all previous copies, organized by date, and > with contributor identification. My proposal makes no reference to changing anything other than the directory structure and the workflow on NextCloud. At all times every one of us has access to every file in the Documentation NextCloud instance 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 all previous 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 name Archive. It could just as easily be renamed Dump, Backup or any meaningful name and still serve the same purpose. > All the best, > Sam. > > Samantha Hamilton > darling docs > > <http://www.darlingdocs.com> <https://github.com/samanthahamilton>[image: > www.linkedin.com/in/shamilton-darlingdocs] > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/shamilton-darlingdocs> Best Regards Dave > On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 8:47 AM User <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Peter, >> >> I am not particularly concerned about the naming of files, my only real >> interest is that there is a simple straight forward and reliable way to >> identify the last edition of the file and where a previous edition of >> that file exists, it can easily be researched and/or recovered. >> All files with any name difference automatically acquire a modified >> date, so identification is extremely simple. Inclusion of the author >> initials serves no real worthwhile purpose, this identification is >> already taken care of in the status sheet and the contributors section >> of every guide chapter. Part of the reasoning behind my suggestion that >> we all identify our initials to names on the status sheets. >> >> If we had even a dozen or more regular contributors then a rigorous file >> naming regime might serve a useful purpose. >> >> Having files stored in just 2 sub-directories (sub-folders) eliminates >> any possibility of the same file being edited twice. Personally I don't >> give a "flying fig" what name the folders are given. If it were up to me >> I would name them WIP (Work In Progress) to hold the most recently >> edited editions of the files and Archive to hold previously edited >> editions. I am yet to be convinced about the value of the Published >> folder, but my view on that point is of no importance. >> >> My one and only motivation is to simplify our workflow. To me >> simplification and ease of understanding of our workflow is an important >> part of getting and keeping new contributors involved. New contributors >> are what the team will always need, because "creaking old geezers" like >> you 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 team >> to decide what we do. >> >> Best Regards >> Dave >> >> PS. I am subscribed, to the list so the private mail is unnecessary :) >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> From: Peter Schofield [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020, 10:38 UTC >> To: DaveB >> Cc: LibreOffice >> Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Proposal for a change to the >> NextCloud workflow >> >>> Hello Dave >>> >>> Another thought to help in keeping track of files and this comes from >> the day when I used to earn money in tech writing. >>> >>> First draft of a file and its filename use a sequence number and the >> creator’s initials, for example IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-01-PS.odt. >>> First review of a file, the reviewer adds their initials to the >> filename, for example IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-01-PS-DB.odt. >>> >>> Second draft of a file, the sequence number increases changing the >> filename and the creator adds their initials, for example >> IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-02-PS.odt. >>> Second review of a file, the reviewer adds their initials to the >> filename, for example IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects-02-PS-DB.odt. >>> >>> When the file is published, the filename does not have a sequence number >> or any initials added, for example IG7005-ManagingGraphicObjects.odt. >>> >>> This does give a good indication of which file is which and prevents the >> wrong file from being edited again. It worked very well for me and a team >> of technical writers. >>> >>> We will agree to disagree about folder names, but still think Feedback >> is the wrong name to use. A Published folder is a definite. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Peter Schofield >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 11 Sep 2020, at 16:18, DaveB <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 the >>>> subject line of this post. >>>> >>>> A copy of my proposal is available from: >>>> https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/9FqwWK3m6Cy2zHQ >>>> The proposal has 5 points together with my rational for the changes. >>>> >>>> If there are no reasonable objections, I propose to start updating our >>>> NextCloud instance on Friday, 18th. September. >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> Dave -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
