Bug 1012226

Summary:	Document use of Process: blocks
Product:	[Community] PressGang CCMS	Reporter:	Misty Stanley-Jones <misty>
Component:	Documentation	Assignee:	lcarlon <lcarlon>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Lee Newson <lnewson>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	2.0	CC:	lcarlon, lnewson
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:	Build Name: 13968, PressGang CCMS Handbook-2.0-1 Build Date: 25-09-2013 16:05:32 Topic ID: 13979-537703 [Latest]
Last Closed:	2014-06-18 07:55:44 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Misty Stanley-Jones 2013-09-26 03:55:34 UTC

See https://mojo.redhat.com/groups/ecs/blog/2013/09/25/topic-reuse-better-practices (in the comments) for Jared's reference.

Comment 1 Lee Newson 2013-10-09 05:55:42 UTC

*** Bug 1012247 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Lee Newson 2013-10-09 05:56:56 UTC

This looks like it was completed, so adding QA notes:

Title: Use the <literal>Process:</literal> Block to Group Tasks in a Sequence

The information about processes is partly incorrect and missing some information. Details:

1. A Process can be used as either a Section, or a Chapter.

2. "Each topic's output will include a link to the previous topic in the process at the top, and a link to the next topic in the process at the bottom" is wrong. It will only included next/previous links to "Task" topics. So if I had the following:

Concept 1
Task 1
Concept 2
Task 2

Concept 2 wouldn't have any previous/next links as a process block is designed to automatically link the steps (identified as task topics) together.

3. No mention is made about the topics having to be a task to have the links injected.

Comment 3 Misty Stanley-Jones 2013-10-09 06:22:21 UTC

Addressed in revision 544707.

Comment 4 Lee Newson 2013-10-09 06:43:41 UTC

Looks perfect, thanks Misty.