The x is not intended to be here?

This notification is something specific to Quick Docs.
Having something like this could be a good idea,
but while a technical review process does not exist for this repo,
I suggest this message is removed.
We can get back to these topics later, perhaps.

This does not render correctly,
in this context, the link: prefix is actually needed.
When I mentioned removing link:,
I meant that it should be removed from contexts
where it can be removed
in the new pages that are added by this pull request.

x is not intended here?
Double linebreak introduces a new paragraph,
perhaps that was not intended either
(though it works ok here)

Could you also apply semantic linebreaks to the new material?
AS you noticed, they were already applied to existing pages,
excluding some mistakes that you found,
but these new pages do not have them at all.

Links to wiki should be checked
for pages that are now part of this repo
and converted to internal xrefs.

Thank you, this is very helpful!

Sorry this is wrong as this in linking to a name within the file.

All those "x" are just quicker fingers than brain in C-x C-s (emacs save file) so my bad sorry.

Same as previous one, bad finger speed on Ctrl-s Ctrl-x. Sorry,

Ok will go for it.

Ok will check it out.

What is the best way to fix the PR ?

Keep commiting to my brach and force-push ? That should get pulled by the PR.

Do you prefer to reject the PR, I commit the fixes to my branch and then squash the commits?

Just tell me what you think it's better.

What is the best way to fix the PR ?

Keep commiting to my brach and force-push ? That should get pulled by the PR.

Force pushing works and is commonly used around here.
After you push, the pull request shows a note that things have changed,
so reviewers know to take a new look.

Thank you for working on this!

For some reason line comments do not work for me right now,
so comments on the 0b7a5c6 revision here.
The list is long, but that is mainly because I finally actually rendered the site
and checked how the resulting pages look like.

1. I suppose files starting with .# are not supposed to be here,
   for example .#create-hello-world-rpm.adoc.
   Some kind of temporary files created by an editor?

2. The link: that was removed from How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group.adoc
   but should not have been removed
   is still there and renders incorrectly.

3. Extra x is still visible on line 79 of Package_Retirement_Process.adoc

4. Extra x is still visible on line 290 of Package_Review_Process.adoc

5. The following files still contain very long lines:
   con_rpm_spec_file_overview.adoc,
   proc_rpm_creating_an_rpm.adoc,
   proc_rpm_preraring_your_system.adoc,
   and the same also goes for individual list items
   here and there in other pages.

Note that in Asciidoc,
you can split list items to multiple lines
as long as you have double linebreaks between list items
like this:

. First list item
  that is broken into more than one line
  for readability purposes.
. Second item follows after a double line break.
. This third item
  is also part of the same list.

The same is also possible for admonitions like NOTE:

NOTE: This admonition is so long
that is was split into multiple lines
so that future updates will show a clean diff
and change submitter and reviewers
can easily check what was changed.

1. create-hello-world.rpm.adoc, line 304: page on this wiki
   is not correct any more, may just page?
   And line 308: dnf.adoc link does not lead anywhere.

2. Creating RPM Packages has a links wiki that should point to docs.fp.o:
   ** to wiki page Join the collection maintainers,
   replace with xref to the imported page in this site.
   ** to wiki page How to create a GNU Hello RPM Package,
   replace with xref to the imported page in this site.
   ** to wiki page Package:Naming,
   replace with correponding link to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/
   ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL,
   replace with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/

3. Broken links for Creating a GNU Hello Works RPM Package.
   ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers,
   replace with an xref to this site
   ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system,
   replace with an xref to this site

4. Create a GNU Hello World RPM Package has a link with link text Fedora rules
   that takes you to a page that starts with a warning
   that the page has not been reviewed for technical accuracy.
   That is very confusing to users.
   Could we use just the page name as the link text
   so that nobody would be misled
   to believe that there are actually some binding rules there?

5. Creating a GNU Hello World RPM Package page has a link
   with text recommended method
   that does not lead where it should.
   ** similar problem with a link with text here.

6. Creating RPM packages page has a broken link that displays as
   [con_rpm_spec_file_overview].

Looks like I missed a lot of problems, sorry about that.

I got this all sorted now, but I will recheck it once built so this time we can get it done.

Tomorrow I will commit an amended PR

Thank you for you detailed review.

Thank you for working on this!

For some reason line comments do not work for me right now,
so comments on the 0b7a5c6 revision here.
The list is long, but that is mainly because I finally actually rendered the site
and checked how the resulting pages look like.

1. I suppose files starting with .# are not supposed to be here,
   for example .#create-hello-world-rpm.adoc.
   Some kind of temporary files created by an editor?

2. The link: that was removed from How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group.adoc
   but should not have been removed
   is still there and renders incorrectly.

3. Extra x is still visible on line 79 of Package_Retirement_Process.adoc

4. Extra x is still visible on line 290 of Package_Review_Process.adoc

5. The following files still contain very long lines:
   con_rpm_spec_file_overview.adoc,
   proc_rpm_creating_an_rpm.adoc,
   proc_rpm_preraring_your_system.adoc,
   and the same also goes for individual list items
   here and there in other pages.

Note that in Asciidoc,
you can split list items to multiple lines
as long as you have double linebreaks between list items
like this:

```
. First list item
that is broken into more than one line
for readability purposes.

. Second item follows after a double line break.

. This third item
is also part of the same list.
```

The same is also possible for admonitions like NOTE:

NOTE: This admonition is so long that is was split into multiple lines so that future updates will show a clean diff and change submitter and reviewers can easily check what was changed.

1. create-hello-world.rpm.adoc, line 304: page on this wiki
   is not correct any more, may just page?
   And line 308: dnf.adoc link does not lead anywhere.

2. Creating RPM Packages has a links wiki that should point to docs.fp.o:
   ** to wiki page Join the collection maintainers,
   replace with xref to the imported page in this site.
   ** to wiki page How to create a GNU Hello RPM Package,
   replace with xref to the imported page in this site.
   ** to wiki page Package:Naming,
   replace with correponding link to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/
   ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL,
   replace with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/

3. Broken links for Creating a GNU Hello Works RPM Package.
   ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers,
   replace with an xref to this site
   ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system,
   replace with an xref to this site

4. Create a GNU Hello World RPM Package has a link with link text Fedora rules
   that takes you to a page that starts with a warning
   that the page has not been reviewed for technical accuracy.
   That is very confusing to users.
   Could we use just the page name as the link text
   so that nobody would be misled
   to believe that there are actually some binding rules there?

5. Creating a GNU Hello World RPM Package page has a link
   with text recommended method
   that does not lead where it should.
   ** similar problem with a link with text here.

6. Creating RPM packages page has a broken link that displays as
   [con_rpm_spec_file_overview].

1. I suppose files starting with .# are not supposed to be here,
for example .#create-hello-world-rpm.adoc.
Some kind of temporary files created by an editor?

Emacs dash files, sorry about that. done

2. The link: that was removed from >How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group.adoc
but should not have been removed
is still there and renders incorrectly.

done and checked

3. Extra x is still visible on line 79 of Package_Retirement_Process.adoc

done and checked

4. Extra x is still visible on line 290 of Package_Review_Process.adoc

done and checked

5. The following files still contain very long lines:
con_rpm_spec_file_overview.adoc,

done and checked
(biggest line 181 chars due to link ->
See https://docs-old.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/Packagers_Guide/chap-Packagers_Guide-Spec_File_Reference-Preamble.html[Spec File Reference Preamble])

proc_rpm_creating_an_rpm.adoc,
proc_rpm_preraring_your_system.adoc,

done and checked

7. create-hello-world.rpm.adoc, line 304: page on this wiki
is not correct any more, may just page?

done and checked

*And line 308: dnf.adoc link does not lead anywhere.

done :

I have put temporarly a link to
https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/create-rpm-package
meanwhile I get what was dnf.adoc or an alternative fedora doc.
checked

8. Creating RPM Packages has a links wiki that should point to docs.fp.o:
to wiki page Join the collection maintainers,
replace with xref to the imported page in this site.

done and checked

to wiki page How to create a GNU Hello RPM Package,
replace with xref to the imported page in this site.

done and checked

• to wiki page Package:Naming,
  replace with correponding link to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging->guidelines/Naming/*

done and checked

• https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL,
  replace with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/*

done and checked

1. Broken links for Creating a GNU Hello Works RPM Package.

should be done as I cant find them in current PR

• https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers,
  replace with an xref to this site*

done and checked

• https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system,
  replace with an xref to this site*

done and checked

10. Create a GNU Hello World RPM Package has a link with link text Fedora rules
that takes you to a page that starts with a warning
that the page has not been reviewed for technical accuracy.
That is very confusing to users.
Could we use just the page name as the link text
so that nobody would be misled
to believe that there are actually some binding rules there?

done

11. Creating a GNU Hello World RPM Package page has a link
with text recommended method
that does not lead where it should.

similar problem with a link with text here.*

done

12. Creating RPM packages page has a broken link that displays as
[con_rpm_spec_file_overview].

done

*and the same also goes for individual list items
here and there in other pages.

I didn't break list items because I didn't know you can do that in
Asciidoc. Sorry.

create-hello-world-rpm.adoc - DONE or CHECKED
How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group.adoc - DONE or CHECKED
How_to_Sponsor_a_New_Contributor.adoc - DONE or CHECKED
index.adoc - DONE or CHECKED
Joining_the_Package_Maintainers.adoc -DONE or CHECKED
New_Package_Process_for_Existing_Contributors.adoc - DONE or CHECKED
Package_Maintenance_Guide.adoc - DONE or CHECKED
Package_Orphaning_Process.adoc -DONE or CHECKED
Package_Renaming_Process.adoc -DONE or CHECKED
Package_Retirement_Process.adoc - DONE or CHECKED
Package_Review_Process.adoc - DONE or CHECKED
Package_Update_Guide.adoc - DONE or CHECKED
Policy_for_Stalled_Package_Reviews.adoc - DONE or CHECKED
publish-rpm-on-copr.adoc - DONE or CHECKED
Staying_Close_to_Upstream_Projects.adoc - DONE or CHECKED
Upstream_Release_Monitoring.adoc -DONE or CHECKED
Using_the_Koji_Build_System.adoc - DONE or CHECKED*

Note: not all files in this last issue were changed, some just were checked to see if there was any issue on them.

Please let me know if you find more issues. Thanks !

This is not supposed to be here

This link is broken

For some reason, the command wrapped in backticks is not rendered in monospace here.

I think I complaind about this link in the last round.
Now the link is fine,
but the content behind it does not actually contain the above script.
Perhaps the whole sentence could be removed,
because the origin of the snippet is now unclear?

EDIT: Oh, the next sentences still talk about that page.
Perhaps a different kind of rephrasing then.

This file is still missing semantic linebreaks.
I see that most of it is composed of definitions lists,
but I suppose linebreaks are allowed there, too.
If not, then just the parts that are outside of definition lists
should be fixed.

Broken links here,
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/ is not operational.
I remember seeing a replacement for it,
but I cannot find out where it is available,
and if it was just a demo or already running in production mode.
Perhaps point the links to https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpm/.
It is not the same service, but close enough.

Monospace formatting is broken here,
/GROUPS gets rendered in paragraph type.

One more round of review.
It is starting to look really good.
Some comments still,
this time line comments work,
everything is listed above.

Next time,
we have to create smaller issues and especially pull requests,
this is unwieldy.

One more round of review.
It is starting to look really good.
Some comments still,
this time line comments work,
everything is listed above.

Going for it.

Next time,
we have to create smaller issues and especially pull requests,
this is unwieldy.

Don't worry about the big task list, I am happy to help and I am a coder myself so for me to try to reach the highest attainable quality is what we should aim for.

It's ok for me to fix the doc again once or one hunderds times.

I just hope those lengthy reviews are not being too much work for you.

If you prefer to split the PR into individual pages, it's ok for me.

Next time,
we have to create smaller issues and especially pull requests,
this is unwieldy.

Don't worry about the big task list, I am happy to help and I am a coder myself so for me to try to reach the highest attainable quality is what we should aim for.

It's ok for me to fix the doc again once or one hunderds times.

I just hope those lengthy reviews are not being too much work for you.

If you prefer to split the PR into individual pages, it's ok for me.

I think we are on the same page here.
It is better to endure a long review process
than to commit something that is half done
and will cause problems ever after.

I do not think it is necessary to split this pull request at this point,
when the review is really close to complete.
Next time, we can try to work smarter.

Reviewing is not too much for work for me,
I just do it whenever I have some time to spend for this.
Large pull requests are problematic,
because the available time may be an one or two hour slot.
If that is not enough to go through the whole set,
the options are to either review partially,
leading to more rounds because not everything is handled in one go,
or to wait until a longer slot appears,
which slows things down in different way.
But, we will manage,
we are progressing all the time.

Hmm, what's the status here?

I have been looking at this now and then.
Completing this pull request regarding formatting and typos would no be a large task.
But the source material is not very good,
so I have been fixing it as I go,
thus the progress has been slow.

For one page, the import is actually complete,
it is now available as Packaging Tutorial: GNU Hello.
I started out by simply fixing the remaining formatting issues from this PR,
but it turned out that the Quick Docs page was badly out of date,
so I ended up doing a large update,
so that the tutorial now actually completes
and uses current Fedora tooling and guidelines.

For the other pages,
Creating RPM Packages has a large section
that is effectively a worse version of the GNU Hello tutorial.
I was thinking of dropping that on import,
just moving the small part where resulting provides and requires are checked
to the GNU Hello tutorial.
The remaining parts seem good.
— Though it may be that it would be better to just refer to
the RPM reference and Fedora Packaging Guidelines
than host another place where some of those things are said again.

For Publishing your software on Corp,
the page's main audience are upstream project maintainers,
and it is not clear to me if the intent even is
that they eventually move from Copr to official Fedora packaging.
The usual Fedora packaging use case of starting from upstream tarball
is only mentioned as an afterthought.
This page could be imported as it is,
but I did not just do that (yet),
because I want to think how it goes together with the rest of the docs.

Remaining useful parts from Quick Docs were imported in 4f490ad7f9794af4abe7cb9404e57b3f665c6b1d.
This pull request is not needed any more.