Hallo hallo! Back from being stuck in Sweden for an extra day and on this again. If it makes sense, I'll review this PR first as it is, and then look at @estramcar 's PR (#5) to see when we should merge that in here. Let's treat this as a mid-way review and aim to put things together to see how they look.

@alesssia , thank you for the detailed PR description here 👌 . If you don't mind, I'm going to rejig the formatting of the description a bit so we make sure all your concerns are addressed!

@alesssia , I've had a quick skim, and first of all, I like your division of the tasks into these sections. It will make comprehension and the wrap-up a lot easier. The descriptions are also very clear - and this is a strange thing to say, but perhaps a little too clear in places, e.g. describing exactly where to look for things. There are two reasons for my saying this:

1. The great thing about the Github web UI is that different actions are often repeated in different ways or views. This is intentionally to increase discovery and support different patterns of collaboration/use. And I also know for a fact that they do track user behaviour and change the places of these things around often - from the screencaps I made before, the same action might change places twice in a year.

2. We should encourage participants to look around and talk to each other. So less time reading and interpreting instructions, more time to explore.

It might detract from the neat work you've done with sections, which I think will play a big part in enabling them to summarise what a good collaboration process looks like, and overall that the same principles apply should they decide to use Bitbucket, Github Desktop, or Git command line instead.

I think it might be clearer to see how to trim the text if you have @estramcar 's images in here (or where images can be improved or added!). Do you think we should merge them in?

And testing/previewing - any instructions on running this locally at least to check it out? :)

@feiphoon happy to make it less detailed, just believed that since we had screenshots we could explain where things were as well. I can drop these, and send an updated pull request. @estramcar what is your opinion?

I will do a fork since it is the main way you have to collaborate in the real world (being a collaborator is rare, at least in my experience). @estramcar ?

Testing: I was doing things while writing, therefore it should work. Anyone wants to create a test repository and play around?

I've had a quick look at running Jekyll locally. My personal machine is at home so I'll try it tonight. But based on this: https://help.github.com/articles/setting-up-your-github-pages-site-locally-with-jekyll/#step-2-install-jekyll-using-bundler

• Requirements section
• Skip Step 1, git clone @alesssia 's fork (https://github.com/alesssia/github-workshop) & checkout branch
• Steps 2, 3, 4

Ok, ladies, since @estramcar is having issues with the forked repo I am closing this pull request and pushing directly. However, since Jekyll projects page live on the gh-pages branches, there will be no need of a pull request (and also this one is somehow misplaced, my bad).

Actually, developers in an organisation don't fork, they use direct push access, even to a repo of considerable size 🙂There is also the git-flow
It depends. The fork and pull model is widely used in the open source community, and in general all the time that you are not part of an organisation or have not been added as a collaborator. I would not ignore it!

@alesssia yes, we are on the same page about what forking is for :) But what we are teaching is a universally-accepted collaboration process with Git, and one that can be practised on one's own or with others in both informal and formal settings. Forking can be easily explained as a modification on top of this process, but the other way round might be tricky. If they learn the basic process, they will be shown how to fork at a Python sprint. I will mention it though, so not ignoring ✌️

By the way, @alesssia & @estramcar , love how thorough we're being, thank you! I'm going to do as much as possible tonight and start filling in/editing.

I'm gonna merge it to make continuing and the next review easier 🍅

That should not have been merged with master in this position. GH either supports docs on a different branch (called gh-pages, that is my favourite option) or in a docs folder (this time on master). Or is there something I am not aware of? 😅

I have cleaned master now (so you can also merge #9) but if we want to move to the second option (docs folder) fine with me.