1 |
W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 21∶59 -0500, użytkownik R0b0t1 |
2 |
napisał: |
3 |
> Hello friends, |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 13∶29 -0400, użytkownik Michael |
7 |
> > Orlitzky napisał: |
8 |
> > > On 09/11/2017 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
9 |
> > > > Hi, |
10 |
> > > > |
11 |
> > > > TL;DR: I'd like to reinstate the old-school GLEPs in .rst files rather |
12 |
> > > > than Wiki, put in a nice git repo. |
13 |
> > > > |
14 |
> > > |
15 |
> > > I generally agree with you that wiki markup is terrible and that a text |
16 |
> > > editor and a git repo is The Right Way to do things (with Jekyll or |
17 |
> > > whatever to push it to the web). But in my experience, crappy and easy |
18 |
> > > is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki |
19 |
> > > documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become |
20 |
> > > the sole contributor, and otherwise-technical people just start emailing |
21 |
> > > me their contributions (which decrease greatly in frequency). |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > [...] |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> > Then, you can just take www.gentoo.org and run it locally. It takes |
26 |
> > a little more effort but jekyll is really trivial to set up and run |
27 |
> > locally. Then you see it exactly how it's gonna look on g.o. |
28 |
> > |
29 |
|
30 |
I'm going to reply to the Gollum topic here since it's the first mail |
31 |
according to date. |
32 |
|
33 |
> I previously suggested Gollum and think I should suggest it again. |
34 |
> Gollum provides features relevant to a Wiki setting including web |
35 |
> editing. |
36 |
|
37 |
Firstly, a generic request to everyone. If you want to suggest that we |
38 |
are supposed to use your-favorite-tool instead of the one we have |
39 |
deployed for a few years now, then please include: |
40 |
|
41 |
1. A short summary including: |
42 |
|
43 |
1a. How it fits into the desired workflow. Topics such as access control |
44 |
and caching are of particular interest to me. |
45 |
|
46 |
1b. What possible future use it could have. |
47 |
|
48 |
1c. How much effort will the future maintenance take. |
49 |
|
50 |
2. A publicly available working instance that resembles the workflow |
51 |
we're aiming for, or an easy way of setting one up. Easy = ~5 simple |
52 |
shell commands, not 'set a webserver up'. |
53 |
|
54 |
3. A statement from an Infra member that is willing to set the instance |
55 |
up and maintain it. |
56 |
|
57 |
Because otherwise we're only going to lose time on theoretical debates |
58 |
over software without even knowing if it will work at all, do what it's |
59 |
supposed to do, and most importantly, if someone will actually set |
60 |
a production instance up and maintain it afterwards. |
61 |
|
62 |
Infra already maintains enough diverse platforms/services/frameworks |
63 |
that serve only a single tool selected by one person who used to like |
64 |
it, and not maintained anymore. SMW belongs to that group. |
65 |
|
66 |
> It would not require pages be rewritten and can render |
67 |
> MediaWiki that is maintained in a Git repository. |
68 |
|
69 |
Secondly, even if Gollum supported MW markup to the point of rendering |
70 |
GLEPs (which it doesn't [1]), MW markup is not suitable for any |
71 |
technical specifications or serious documentation for two reasons: |
72 |
|
73 |
a. MW markup is not proper WYWIWYG. Any more complex part of |
74 |
the document is not readable as plaintext. Add to that the horrible |
75 |
syntax requiring <nowiki> use mixed with inline HTML... |
76 |
|
77 |
b. MW markup is not standalone. Our GLEPs already started heavily |
78 |
depending on random templates (which can change at any time, breaking |
79 |
GLEPs in the process btw). |
80 |
|
81 |
> It should be all of the positives with no negatives. |
82 |
|
83 |
Is it? |
84 |
|
85 |
|
86 |
[1]:https://help.github.com/articles/supported-mediawiki-formats/ |
87 |
|
88 |
-- |
89 |
Best regards, |
90 |
Michał Górny |