<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 29, 2016, at 1:16 PM, James Perkins <<a href="mailto:jperkins@redhat.com" class="">jperkins@redhat.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Carl Harris <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:ceharris414@me.com" target="_blank" class="">ceharris414@me.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">This has probably already been mentioned somewhere in this thread, but a related advantage to an asciidoc (or similar) approach using git, is that you can more easily take documentation contributions in the form of pull requests.</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">This is something I didn't consider. Thank you for pointing it out. Out of curiosity is there a reason you don't want to just update the document itself?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Apart from the issue of needing permission to do so, as I contributor I would feel more confident about suggesting a revision through a pull request, as opposed to committing a revision. Someone more familiar with the documentation would be able to ensure that conventions are appropriately followed, that the revision doesn't change the semantics in a way that is incorrect or inappropriate, etc. Basically, all the same benefits of any code review, but applied to documentation.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Having used a couple of open source products with freely editable documentation wikis, I'd say that even a minimal process of reviewing and merging changes is more likely to result in a consistent and useful document than simply allowing community edits. Again, just my 2 cents.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>carl</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>