Re: Developments in the review cycle

Subject: Re: Developments in the review cycle
From: Ryan Young <ryangyoung -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: Steve Hudson <sh1448291904 -at- gmail -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:58:36 -0700

We've started using pull requests in Git for our reviews (our source is
Markdown). Like Confluence, everyone can see each other's comments and you
can have a conversation thread. It works especially well for revisions
because you can see exactly what changed. It hasn't been that long, but
I've begun to prefer it to Confluence because it limits comments to the
review period. While the continuous feedback is nice, I find it difficult
to properly deal with many different disparate comments on a "finished" doc
while I'm working on the next thing.

We assign reviews in JIRA to keep track and try to break up the reviews in
small-ish chunks so as not to overload reviewers.

I greatly prefer this process to the old one where I'd send out a PDF to a
bunch of people, parse their comments (which were sometimes in the PDF,
sometimes not), update the source, send out another revision, and so on.


-----Original Message-----
> From: techwr-l-bounces+sh1448291904=gmail -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> [mailto:techwr-l-bounces+sh1448291904=gmail -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On
> Behalf Of Erika Yanovich
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 April 2016 12:08
> To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Subject: Developments in the review cycle
>
> In the "good old days", tech writers followed the Outline-First
> draft-Second-draft-Camera ready model. We would submit an entire
> publication
> for review (perhaps with some minor TBDs inside) and the world was a
> simpler
> place.
>
> What I see nowadays is more dynamic: partial drafts (or bunch of topics)
> sent to different reviewers at different times. The stages are blurred and
> the follow-up more complicated.
>
> I know some of you don't believe in complete publications anymore, just in
> separate topics that get compiled daily (or whenever) into a larger entity,
> but publications are still alive and kicking out there.
>
> So my questions are:
> 1. Do you also see this transformation?
> 2. If yes, how do you cope with it?
> 3. Should we manage each chunk separately according to the old model
> (sounds
> a bit crazy) or replace the old model with a new one?
>
> Erika
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives


Follow-Ups:

References:
Developments in the review cycle: From: Erika Yanovich
RE: Developments in the review cycle: From: Steve Hudson

Previous by Author: Re: Online help for GUI/web-based config app of HW telecom products
Next by Author: Re: Developments in the review cycle
Previous by Thread: RE: Developments in the review cycle
Next by Thread: Re: Developments in the review cycle


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads