From ml at gondwanaland.com  Sat Dec 19 23:31:10 2015
From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 14:31:10 -0800
Subject: [cof-book] [Cof-people] gitbook!
In-Reply-To: <56574CA4.3050501@clementrenaud.com>
References: <565733CA.8090501@dyne.org>
	<56574CA4.3050501@clementrenaud.com>
Message-ID: <CAGSmzpR0-0zrQ37KOxktDz84c4B9Sx2VxnXfUXwVstDWk5K76g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Is costoffreedom-book the correct repo to make pull requests to for typos etc?

I have a bunch of small edits on a local branch to the
costoffreedom.cc repo that I made over a month ago. I want to finish
them, but also merge into most useful place.

Asking because I don't see much activity recently so am not sure
whether plans are still the same.

Thanks,
Mike

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Cl?ment Renaud <hi at clementrenaud.com> wrote:
> thanks hellekin, your are too fast ! I was planning to write sth tonight :)
>  so I finally figured out how to export the book properly from the latest
> versions of the texts (using "gitbook" )
> The updated html version is now available at
> http://book.costoffreedom.cc (in a more web-readable format)
> then PDF + ePub + mobi are now automatically updated and published when
> we modify the book contents on github
>
> As we moved out the book, the website is now back to 2 pages only : home
> page and press kit.
>
> Both need some love. Here is the todos for each - mostly rewording and
> basic CSS :
>
> * homepage :
> https://github.com/costoffreedom/costoffreedom.cc/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Apress-kit
> * press kit :
> https://github.com/costoffreedom/costoffreedom.cc/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Ahomepage
>
> IMHO once those 2 pages are ready we will have a decent book archive. We
> may want to trigger some press coverage then.
>
> cheers,
> _Cl?ment
>
> On 11/26/2015 05:31 PM, hellekin wrote:
>> I want to salute the work done recently by Clement on
>> https://github.com/costoffreedom/costoffreedom-book
>>
>> I think it has the potential not only to make booksprints easier to
>> handle with remote collaborators, but also to enable many other people
>> to produce their own books following this approach.
>>
>> ==
>> hk
>>
>
> --
> http://freebassel.org
>
>
> --
> @clemsos
> http://clementrenaud.com
> _______________________________________________
> Cof-people mailing list
> Cof-people at lists.costoffreedom.cc
> http://lists.costoffreedom.cc/mailman/listinfo/cof-people

From hellekin at dyne.org  Sat Dec 19 23:33:47 2015
From: hellekin at dyne.org (hellekin)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 22:33:47 +0000
Subject: [cof-book] [Cof-people] gitbook!
In-Reply-To: <CAGSmzpR0-0zrQ37KOxktDz84c4B9Sx2VxnXfUXwVstDWk5K76g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <565733CA.8090501@dyne.org> <56574CA4.3050501@clementrenaud.com>
	<CAGSmzpR0-0zrQ37KOxktDz84c4B9Sx2VxnXfUXwVstDWk5K76g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5675DB4B.9050007@dyne.org>

On 12/19/2015 10:31 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Is costoffreedom-book the correct repo to make pull requests to for typos etc?
>

I agree that having two repositories is a problem.  We should get rid of
one.

==
hk

-- 
 _ _     We are free to share code and we code to share freedom
(_X_)yne Foundation, Free Culture Foundry * https://www.dyne.org/donate/

From ml at gondwanaland.com  Sat Dec 19 23:46:33 2015
From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 14:46:33 -0800
Subject: [cof-book] [Cof-people] gitbook!
In-Reply-To: <5675DB4B.9050007@dyne.org>
References: <565733CA.8090501@dyne.org> <56574CA4.3050501@clementrenaud.com>
	<CAGSmzpR0-0zrQ37KOxktDz84c4B9Sx2VxnXfUXwVstDWk5K76g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5675DB4B.9050007@dyne.org>
Message-ID: <CAGSmzpRn0yuw=ZNxBuxZryMrCeqLBfjymKfjbGhMs6EOy=rbsg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 2:33 PM, hellekin <hellekin at dyne.org> wrote:
> On 12/19/2015 10:31 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is costoffreedom-book the correct repo to make pull requests to for typos etc?
>>
>
> I agree that having two repositories is a problem.  We should get rid of
> one.

I don't think it is necessarily a problem if the justification is
good. IIRC the justifcation is that gitbook is easier to make work
with a dedicated repo. That's OK with me.

I really was just asking if that's the repo to use still going
forward, not making a passive aggressive criticism based on preference
for single repo. :)

Mike