Broken link re: FLOE

Clark, Colin cclark at
Wed Oct 22 22:18:34 UTC 2014

That sounds entirely reasonable. We can afford to have a more flexible approach to making changes to websites and documentation and so on.


Colin Clark
Lead Software Architect,
Inclusive Design Research Centre, OCAD University

On Oct 22, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Justin Obara <obara.justin at> wrote:

> Just as a follow up, the process that Anastasia outlined below is the typical process we have for our repositories. The broken link in this case was actually an issue in the infusion repo as it was in the overview panel of a demo. This would require the full process. However, for our actual sites, like the landing page and etc, we may want to be more lenient about simple changes (e.g. fixing a broken link or spelling mistake), and allow the fixer to commit the change without a Pull Request. 
> How does that sound?
> Thanks
> Justin
>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 9:58 AM, Cheetham, Anastasia <acheetham at> wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Jess Mitchell <jessmitchell at> wrote:
>>> What’s the process for this being updated? I think I just don’t know how GitHub changes for websites happen.
>> The regular github process of
>> 1) JIRA
>> 2) branch and fix
>> 3) issue pull request
>> 4) review and merge
>> applies. Once the fix is merged into master, master is merged into the gh-pages branch. I think once that happens, it’s live.
>> I’ll issue a pull request for the fix today. I’ll double-check all the other demo links while I’m in there.
>> -- 
>> Anastasia Cheetham – acheetham at
>> Inclusive Design Research Centre
>> Inclusive Design Institute
>> OCAD University
>> _______________________________________________________
>> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at
>> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>> see

More information about the fluid-work mailing list