Need for a means of "checking out" content and marking it as being worked on

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
davidnelson davidnelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Need for a means of "checking out" content and marking it as being worked on

Hi Christian, :-)

If we are to get more people involved in working on content, we need
to coordinate work so that efforts are not duplicated and work can be
apportioned.

We need a means of marking content as "checked out" content, so that
other people stay off it until the author checks it in again. Alfresco
has functionality for this.

What can you suggest? What are your ideas on this?

David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Christian Lohmaier (klammer) Christian Lohmaier (klammer)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Need for a means of "checking out" content and marking it as being worked on

Hi David, *,

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:27 PM, David Nelson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> We need a means of marking content as "checked out" content, so that
> other people stay off it until the author checks it in again. Alfresco
> has functionality for this.
>
> What can you suggest? What are your ideas on this?

(we talked about this in the confcall, nevertheless I summarize the
currently available ways here)

If There is a definite group who is "checking out" the pages, then one
way would be to create a corresponding user-group, add the
"review-publisher" to that group and then limit the publish-rights for
the page to that group.

Another way would be to do this just by spoken/written policy (and not
by technical enforcement), i.e. go away from publishing right away
even if you got publisher rights, to requesting publication and have
someone else review the page.
I personally prefer this approach.

ciao
Christian

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Narayan Aras Narayan Aras
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Need for a means of "checking out" content and marking it as being worked on


I think the following arrangement between authors would be simplest to implement:

Whenever one author takes up editing, he should write the following details in the TODO tab:
1. His own name
2. How he intends to change the page
3. By which date he intends to finish the editing


Example (for the "What is LibreOffice?" page):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name      Change                                                      Estimated finish date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David      Adding "product philosophy" text                   1st Feb 2011 (Done)
Narayan  Adding "Unique features in LibreOffice"          20th Feb 2011  


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once the task is over, add  "(Done)", so that the next author knows the page is freed up.

As a practice, all authors should check this page out before touching the contents page.
     
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

klaus-jürgen weghorn ol klaus-jürgen weghorn ol
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Need for a means of "checking out" content and marking it as being worked on

In reply to this post by Christian Lohmaier (klammer)
Am 02.02.2011 22:53, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
>
> If There is a definite group who is "checking out" the pages, then one
> way would be to create a corresponding user-group, add the
> "review-publisher" to that group and then limit the publish-rights for
> the page to that group.

But all of this (Christian's and Narayan's decisions) is a huge effort
if you only want to change some little things like misspelling, wrong
links etc.

I won't write many words in the todo or somewhere else when I only want
to change some letters or a link.

And I won't ask some "review-publisher" for that to publish it. If you
want this the most people outside the "review-publisher" won't do any
change on the website.

And who will decide who will get in the review-team? What will be the
criteria?

And will this be only for the international site or for the NL-sites too?

>
> Another way would be to do this just by spoken/written policy (and not
> by technical enforcement), i.e. go away from publishing right away
> even if you got publisher rights, to requesting publication and have
> someone else review the page.
> I personally prefer this approach.

A written policy must be signed from all the publishers. And this is
what we didn't want.
A spoken policy won't be useful as we have seen in case of Sophie (as
expert on l10n) and David (as "limited in time web content admin"). And
with this example the hole thing don't function because you have e.g. an
expert in a subject who isn't inside the "review-team" and he writes
something which is quite useful and necessary and the review-team as
non-experts in this subject will not publish it (because of many
discussions or personal disagreement or so). How will this then
function: Will there be a voting in the review-publisher team for a page?

The spoken policy must be transformed to every new publisher in the
coming years.

As above: Will this be only for the international site or for the
NL-sites too?

For the case of policy:
If I only requesting publication there is shown that there is sent an
"email to no one". And so I do not know if the site would "ever" published.

The only way as I think is to get some written down criteria for
changing author-rights to publisher-rights for "newbies" up to now. But
this should be a new topic with a wikipage to develope.

The last thing:
Is it really necessary to "checking out" the work of someone here who is
a publisher yet?

Maybe we do this:
One will be the head/admin of a single page (not for all!). Mostly it
will be the person who build in the site. And all the others ask him
after changing it except with little changes. The head or some one he
called will publish it. His name is commented in the site.
After some time (let me say 3 or 6 months) the site has no "head" except
the one renews his "heading".
The community is able to set an other head if they think it is better
for this single page.
But we should do this on meriocraty and not on force.
If someone breaks the rule more often without any reason he will loose
his publisher rights after some explained warning.

--
Grüße
k-j

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Narayan Aras Narayan Aras
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Need for a means of "checking out" content and marking it as being worked on


Hi!

> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 11:13:53 +0100
> From: [hidden email]

> But all of this (Christian's and Narayan's decisions) is a huge effort
> if you only want to change some little things like misspelling, wrong
> links etc.

If you have seen the recent posts, I am NOT part of the decision-makers. :)
It was just a suggestion, not a "decision" :)
Obviously it was meant to address longer edits, not spot-changes.

> I won't write many words in the todo or somewhere else when I only want
> to change some letters or a link.

This is not a question of how big your change is, but the possibility of its being overwritten!
AFAIK unlike a VCS, Silverstripe is unable to detect/avoid check-in conflicts.

That's why I suggested manual setting of a "flag" to tip off anyone who wants to edit the same page.

Regards,
Narayan
     
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Wheatbix Wheatbix
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Need for a means of "checking out" content and marking it as being worked on

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Narayan Aras <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This is not a question of how big your change is, but the possibility of its being overwritten!
> AFAIK unlike a VCS, Silverstripe is unable to detect/avoid check-in conflicts.
>
> That's why I suggested manual setting of a "flag" to tip off anyone who wants to edit the same page.
>
> Regards,
> Narayan


I agree that we need a way of identifying conflicting concurrent editing.
A 'flag' or 'checkout' is usually how this is done.

Maybe Christian can shed some light on the native functions of
Silverstripe for checking out content to ensure these conflicts don't
occur and others cannot edit the same content at the same time.
I have never come across a CMS that is unable to do this, so I am sure
there will be some kind of native protection for concurrent editing.

Michael Wheatland

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Christian Lohmaier (klammer) Christian Lohmaier (klammer)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Need for a means of "checking out" content and marking it as being worked on

Hi Michael, *,

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Michael Wheatland
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Narayan Aras <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> This is not a question of how big your change is, but the possibility of its being overwritten!
>> AFAIK unlike a VCS, Silverstripe is unable to detect/avoid check-in conflicts.
>>
>> That's why I suggested manual setting of a "flag" to tip off anyone who wants to edit the same page.
>
> I agree that we need a way of identifying conflicting concurrent editing.
> A 'flag' or 'checkout' is usually how this is done.
>
> Maybe Christian can shed some light on the native functions of
> Silverstripe for checking out content to ensure these conflicts don't
> occur and others cannot edit the same content at the same time.

Well - why not just respect the "changed" highlighting (the green
color in the sitetree")?
I mean that's how I handle it. When I see a changed page, but doesn't
have a workflow request pending, this means for me: Someone is working
on this, If I have an urgent fix, I'll mail the one who edited the
page if it is not clear what he/she is working on.

So no, there is no "protection" against concurrent editing, the one
who publishes last "wins". but this is no real problem, as the changes
are not lost, you can always restore the changes using the version
history.

So the solution would be to save early when you start editing, so that
the page is flagged as changed and other know that someone is editing.

There is a module that adds explicit warnings and works by storing the
users who have currently opened/are currently viewing a page in the
cms. Thus this could possibly generate lots of false warnings (I'm
only viewing the page, not editing it, but it will still warn others
that I'm working on it/I have that page open - although I'm not sure
how exactly it works)
http://silverstripe.org/concurrent-editing-module/

ciao
Christian

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Narayan Aras Narayan Aras
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Need for a means of "checking out" content and marking it as being worked on


That plugin looks good..why not try it? If we face problems, we can always uninstall it! :)

It seems to warn only when someone else EDITS the page; not when he OPENS it.


-Narayan

     
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Christian Lohmaier (klammer) Christian Lohmaier (klammer)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Need for a means of "checking out" content and marking it as being worked on

In reply to this post by klaus-jürgen weghorn ol
Hi Klaus-Jürgen, *,

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:13 AM, klaus-jürgen weghorn ol
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Am 02.02.2011 22:53, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
>>
>> If There is a definite group who is "checking out" the pages, then one
>> way would be to create a corresponding user-group, add the
>> "review-publisher" to that group and then limit the publish-rights for
>> the page to that group.
>
> But all of this (Christian's and Narayan's decisions)

Oh, I wasn't makng decisions, and what you describe isn't my first
choice either.

> I won't write many words in the todo or somewhere else when I only want to
> change some letters or a link.

No - you would edit the page, and request publication.

> And I won't ask some "review-publisher" for that to publish it. If you want
> this the most people outside the "review-publisher" won't do any change on
> the website.

Well, it is not really different from the author and publisher groups
that we currently have already. (Well, almost everybody is publisher
and bypasses the workflow, i.e. everybody publishes him/herself, but
you get the idea hopefully)

> And will this be only for the international site or for the NL-sites too?

Every NL-project is of course free to handle the editing as they wish.
And due to the management overhad that a special review group would
require, I'm all for just having it ruled by policy, i.e. by telling
people: "Look, please don't publish right away, but please have
someone else review your changes, to do so don't use "save and
publish", but "save", and then "request publication".

>> Another way would be to do this just by spoken/written policy (and not
>> by technical enforcement), i.e. go away from publishing right away
>> even if you got publisher rights, to requesting publication and have
>> someone else review the page.
>> I personally prefer this approach.
>
> A written policy must be signed from all the publishers. And this is what we
> didn't want.

"written" in the terms of guidelines in the wiki or wherever, not real
paper that people would have to sign and send back in.

> The last thing:
> Is it really necessary to "checking out" the work of someone here who is a
> publisher yet?

No - that term was used because some other document management system
uses it. It is just a way to signal "Hands off, I'm currently editing
it, changes you do will be overwritten with the changes I'm
preparing".

I guess you need to take everything with a grain of salt.

Soon there will not be major changes to the existing pages anymore,
rather than refinement, etc. Just think of the pages in the OOo
project. Once you got the site/a specific part of the site done, the
editing cycles will be far fewer, and the chances of conflict will be
less as well. So don't panic :-)

ciao
Christian

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***