4 ms·
I agree. I've personally noticed time and time again how git-based workflows discourage me personally from making small one-time changes like typo fixes compare
by lutoma 6y ago
I agree. I've personally noticed time and time again how git-based workflows discourage me personally from making small one-time changes like typo fixes compared to a wiki or similar. It's just so much more overhead to have to start up a CLI, edit the document, push a commit, open a pull request etc…
This is not to say there aren't advantages to the git-based workflow and it might be a valid choice for a technical audience like this, but to claim it as "huge advantage in terms of contribution workflow" seems questionable.
- breck 6y ago1. You can have both. Parts of our site (Our World in Data) the researchers edit via a GUI, but under the hood it is making a commit and pushing to GitHub. My guess is MDN just hasn't gotten around to that yet? 2. GitHub and GitLab are a lot better nowadays at allowing you to edit markdown docs via the web and preview the results in a few clicks. Not quite as frictionless as 1 click, however if you are an editor and are constantly bombarded by spam, probably saves a lot of time as you know the person who is making the change and they are forced to add an explanation via commit message.
- peterbe 6y ago1. That's right! But it's not really on the roadmaps either. One can hope that someone in the community writes a fancy web app wrapper for GitHub's API or something. 2. Yeah, it's really really convenient to submit a quick PR entirely in the GitHub Web UI. But I admit, we have some work to do make the previewing experience a bit better.