14:00:26 <ohiojoe> #startmeeting 2018-11-01 – Documentation Interest Group Meeting
14:00:26 <pinesol> Meeting started Thu Nov  1 14:00:26 2018 US/Eastern.  The chair is ohiojoe. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:26 <pinesol> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:26 <pinesol> The meeting name has been set to '2018_11_01___documentation_interest_group_meeting'
14:00:38 <ohiojoe> #topic agenda
14:00:46 <ohiojoe> #link https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=evergreen-docs:dig_meetings:20181101-agenda
14:00:55 <ohiojoe> #topic Introductions: please paste "#info <username> is <name> <affiliation>" to identify who you are and what organization, if any, you represent
14:03:47 <sandbergja> #info sandbergja is Jane Sandberg, Linn-Benton Community College
14:04:02 <jihpringle> #info jihpringle is Jennifer Pringle, BC Libraries Cooperative (Sitka)
14:04:02 <ohiojoe> #info ohiojoe is Joe Knueven, DIG Facilitator & Evergreen enthusiast
14:05:06 <abneiman> #info abneiman is Andrea Buntz Neiman, Equinox
14:05:35 <ohiojoe> #topic Ongoing Business
14:05:44 <ohiojoe> #topic Progress on documenting new features in Evergreen 3.2 (and previous)
14:08:20 <ohiojoe> Do we have anything to talk about here today?
14:09:30 <abneiman> I have a process question related to this, but I can wait for New Business
14:09:59 <ohiojoe> well, in that case
14:10:05 <ohiojoe> #topic New Business
14:10:09 <abneiman> heh
14:10:10 <ohiojoe> take it away :)
14:11:16 <abneiman> so, my question is about calling attention to pullrequests in github.  The wiki page (https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=evergreen-docs:how-to-contribute-documentation) indicates that you just sfile your pullrequest in github and then it will be reviewed
14:12:01 <abneiman> however, there's a few months' worth of docs PRs (back to June, it looks like) and I'm wondering -- based on Remington's email yesterday -- if we should be creating these in Launchpad as well
14:12:56 <abneiman> and if so, I'm happy to modify the wiki page to add that instruction
14:13:11 <sandbergja> abneiman: that's a really good question!
14:14:32 <sandbergja> I think that adding to Launchpad seems like an extra step, and it would raise another barrier to folks contributing their docs
14:14:53 <sandbergja> But at the same time, it would make pull requests more visible to potential reviewers
14:15:05 <abneiman> that's a fair point about a barrier
14:15:22 <sandbergja> I'm also not sure who all feels very confident about merging pull requests from GitHub
14:15:48 <sandbergja> I don't (yet).  I'm pretty sure remingtron has those skills!
14:15:48 <abneiman> sandbergja: that is the real question, I guess -- who is merging from github?  Is anyone?
14:16:33 <abneiman> If that's a Remington questions, I can chat with him next week -- we'll both be at Hackaway
14:17:58 <sandbergja> Remington would definitely know the most about it.  If there were a documented process for docs committers to follow, it would help me a lot personally.
14:18:19 <abneiman> sandbergja: same.  If someone wants to tell me the process, I'm happy to write it up :)
14:19:10 <ohiojoe> that sounds like a good question to raise with him next week..  especially given the back log you mentioned..
14:19:30 <abneiman> sure, will do
14:19:32 <sandbergja> abneiman++
14:19:41 <ohiojoe> abneiman++
14:20:46 <ohiojoe> So, while we're here in new business, Remington posed a question about how we handle the terminology change in 3.2
14:22:16 <abneiman> can text be globally replaced?  (though that has risks)  I'm sure there's also legions of screenshots to replace.
14:22:46 <ohiojoe> oye, I didn't think about the screenshots, though that's a good point too..
14:23:31 <sandbergja> abneiman: yes, but I suspect there would be so many false positives that it would be not really the route we want to take
14:24:04 <abneiman> sandbergja: that's what I was afraid of
14:24:36 <sandbergja> It seems like there have been so many things lately that affect large areas of the documentation!
14:24:55 <sandbergja> Web client, docs reorg, etc.
14:26:23 <sandbergja> It seems like -- as long as there were some good guidelines for when to change "copy" to "item" and when to change "volume" to "call number", one of our student workers might be able to help out.
14:27:15 <abneiman> perhaps if specific chapters and/or pages were identified?
14:28:11 <ohiojoe> I'd agree..  it's daunting because of the sheer volume of places where changes are likely wanted..
14:29:03 <ohiojoe> Identifying locations sounds like a rather easy task..  perhaps a good jumping off point to encourage folks into the docs circle..?
14:29:04 <abneiman> *sheer call number of places ;-)
14:29:08 <sandbergja> Just checked with our cataloger -- our student worker in technical services might have some time next week to work on this
14:29:10 <ohiojoe> lol
14:29:14 <sandbergja> hahahaha
14:29:49 <abneiman> ohiojoe: I agree that it could be a good starting point for new docs people, especially those familiar with EG & cataloging
14:30:07 <kmlussier> This comment has the most details on when the terminology was changed or not changed. https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1538691/comments/18
14:30:08 <pinesol> Launchpad bug 1538691 in Evergreen "webclient: Consistency for terminology in cataloging" [Wishlist,Fix released]
14:30:40 <kmlussier> Almost all instances of copy were changed to item and volume to call number. There were very few exceptions, but I didn't touch Dojo interfaces.
14:30:58 <sandbergja> I agree that it would be a good starting point for a new contributor, but I also don't want it to sit for too long waiting for somebody new to show up...
14:31:17 <sandbergja> kmlussier++
14:31:21 <kmlussier> However, there are times when copy is used to refer to the action of copying. That's where you need to be careful.
14:31:36 <kmlussier> In fact, I think I missed one of those instances and accidentally renamed it 'item.'
14:32:57 <ohiojoe> yeah, it the copying instances are a big reason why we couldn't do a global change..
14:33:14 <ohiojoe> I agree about not waiting too long for a new volunteer to appear..
14:33:49 <sandbergja> I can definitely create a list of files that contain the terms "volume" or "copy" and might need manual review
14:34:09 <sandbergja> docs files that is
14:35:16 <abneiman> sandbergja: I think that would be a goof starting point
14:35:30 <ohiojoe> perhaps we could put a call out on one or more of the lists asking folks to review those files for places to make the change?
14:36:46 <sandbergja> 51 occurences of "volume" in the docs -- a lot of them are "volume" as in "a large volume of X"
14:37:23 <sandbergja> 845 occurences of "copy" :-( :-(
14:37:57 <abneiman> yikes
14:38:08 <abneiman> well, it's a place to start, anyway
14:38:15 <ohiojoe> and there are probably a very healthy number of both "copy" as in "item" and copy as in an action..
14:38:19 * kmlussier suddenly wonders why she wanted to change the terminology in the first place. ;)
14:38:43 <sandbergja> kmlussier: I'm guessing permission names stayed the same, right (e.g. COPY_STATUS_LONG_OVERDUE.override is still the same, right?)
14:38:55 <kmlussier> Yes, anything in the database stayed the same.
14:39:17 <sandbergja> kmlussier: Because it's actually great and so so helpful for users!
14:39:30 <kmlussier> As far as global find and replace, you can reduce the workload a bit by using it for things like 'copy location' or other two-word phrases that use copy or volume.
14:39:36 <kmlussier> That's how I got a lot of the code changes done.
14:40:23 <sandbergja> Oooh, that's good advice
14:40:25 <ohiojoe> kmlussier:  mm, that's a good idea..  I bet with a little review we could come up with one or two other examples like that that could be applied globally..
14:42:25 <sandbergja> I have a little time tomorrow.  I can try to compile a list then.  And our student worker can take a first pass at it next week, and then I can report back to y'all about how it worked out and what's left to do.
14:42:41 <sandbergja> ^first pass at making those changes
14:43:21 <ohiojoe> that would be great if you can do that..
14:43:24 <ohiojoe> sandbergja++
14:44:48 <abneiman> sandbergja++
14:46:32 <kmlussier> sandbergja++
14:46:53 <ohiojoe> With that, we are actually past time on moving into the one on one and small group portion of our meeting..
14:47:17 <sandbergja> kmlussier: When you say that you didn't touch Dojo interfaces: are there still interfaces that still use the old terminology?  If so, what should we do with those?
14:47:44 <sandbergja> Proactively change the terminology so we don't have to worry about it later?
14:48:16 <kmlussier> Actually, I may have lied. There were a couple of admin interfaces I changed because the main Admin interface was in AngularJS, and I wanted the link to match the name of the interface.
14:48:38 <kmlussier> For the rest, I was just planning to wait until they were changed over to Angular.
14:49:00 <abneiman> +1 on waiting for Angular for the remainder
14:49:37 <kmlussier> We know acquisitions is moving to Angular soon. I don't know how many other Dojo interfaces there are that use those terms.
14:51:25 <jihpringle> +1 to waiting for Angular, I could see it causing some confusion in acq to change the docs ahead
14:51:35 <sandbergja> Okay, I'll just be sure to leave acquisitions out of my list-making.
14:53:11 <ohiojoe> With that, we are approaching the top of the hour.  Is there anything else we should try to discuss today?
14:58:02 <ohiojoe> If not, thank you everyone and have a good day
14:58:06 <ohiojoe> #endmeeting