1 files changed, 99 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/contributing/web_pages/news.mdwn b/contributing/web_pages/news.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..d6e25b87
--- /dev/null
+++ b/contributing/web_pages/news.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
+
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
+License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
+
+[[!meta title="""How to prepare and publish "a month of the Hurd" for the last
+month"""]]
+
+We prepare *a month of the Hurd* in a public git branch (`master-news_next`),
+and merge that one into `master` once we want to publish the news.  The idea is
+to record to-be-published changes on that branch at they time they arise, and
+then publish them en bloc at the end of the month.
+
+As this is done on a separate branch, there are two options: you can have
+separate repositories (*clones*, or *checkouts*; what you get from `git clone`)
+for the `master` and `master-news_next` branches, or you can deal with both in
+the same repository.  Having separate repositories you don't have to remember
+which branch you're on, and don't have to switch between branches before
+beginning to edit files, and it doesn't matter -- as no switching between
+branches is needed -- if you have uncomitted changes to some files.  On the
+other hand, you may want to keep it all in one repository, to save disk space,
+and for shuffling different branches' commits being (a bit) easier.
+
+For practical work that means to use the following commands: 
+
+  * create a local branch for `master-news_next`
+
+        $ git fetch
+        $ git checkout -b master-news_next origin/master-news_next
+
+      * if you already have created a local branch `master-news_next`: update to
+        the latest version of it
+
+            $ git checkout master-news_next
+            $ git pull --rebase
+
+  * edit
+
+    Always do check which branch you're on (asterisk in the first column of
+    `git branch`'s output), and only then begin to do your changes and commit
+    them.
+
+    We should not update news items that have already been published (that is,
+    on <http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/news.html>; no problem for the
+    [[staging area|web_pages#staging_area]]), as the system will always also
+    update the RSS feeds, etc., causing the old news item to reappear on feeds,
+    which is a bit of a nuisance.
+
+      * at the beginning of a month: create a new news entry
+
+            $ cp news/2009-06-30.mdwn news/YYYY-MM-DD.mdwn
+            $ # edit the new file
+            $ git add news/YYYY-MM-DD.mdwn
+            $ git commit -m "Begun the news entry for YYYY-MM-DD."
+
+        That is, use the *2009-06-30* news snippet as a template for the new
+        one.
+
+  * check the outgoing changes
+
+        $ git log --reverse -p -C origin/master-news_next..master-news_next
+
+  * push the changes
+
+        $ git push origin master-news_next
+
+      * if push fails, pull and rebase the local changes on top of the remote
+        changes
+
+            $ git pull --rebase
+
+        This will only happen if someone else has been installing commits into
+        `origin`'s `master-news_next` branch since the last time you
+        synchronized to it.
+
+        Note that this might cause some conflicts to arise -- if the remote
+        repository contains commits that conflict with any that you've been
+        recording in your local repository.  For this reason, you might want to
+        already do this *rebase* before beginning you local edits, simply to
+        shorten the time frame in which such conflicts can arise.
+        (Theoretically, in the very rare case of very much concurrent editing
+        going on, you'd have to repeat this again (and again...) before
+        succeeding to push your changes.)
+
+  * at the end of the month: publish the news
+
+        $ git checkout master
+        $ git pull --rebase
+        $ git merge master-news_next
+        $ git push origin master
+
+    That means, for publishing we merge `master-news_next` into `master`.
+    After that merge, work for the next month's news item can continue on
+    `master-news_next`.