1 |
W dniu wto, 12.09.2017 o godzinie 00∶07 -0700, użytkownik Daniel |
2 |
Campbell napisał: |
3 |
> On 09/11/2017 01:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
> > W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 13∶29 -0400, użytkownik Michael |
5 |
> > Orlitzky napisał: |
6 |
> > > On 09/11/2017 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
7 |
> > > > Hi, |
8 |
> > > > |
9 |
> > > > TL;DR: I'd like to reinstate the old-school GLEPs in .rst files rather |
10 |
> > > > than Wiki, put in a nice git repo. |
11 |
> > > > |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > > I generally agree with you that wiki markup is terrible and that a text |
14 |
> > > editor and a git repo is The Right Way to do things (with Jekyll or |
15 |
> > > whatever to push it to the web). But in my experience, crappy and easy |
16 |
> > > is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki |
17 |
> > > documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become |
18 |
> > > the sole contributor, and otherwise-technical people just start emailing |
19 |
> > > me their contributions (which decrease greatly in frequency). |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > Rich already answered this in detail, so I'll skip it. |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > > Will it be possible to build the GLEP rst files locally, and view the |
24 |
> > > output exactly as it would appear on the website? I ask because, so long |
25 |
> > > as you don't want to be able to preview the result, you can already |
26 |
> > > write MediaWiki markup into a text file locally. The offline "live |
27 |
> > > preview" ability is the killer feature of RST as I see it. |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> > Of course yes. However, the exactness of result depends on how much |
30 |
> > effort you put into it. |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> > The 'easy way' is rst2html.py (dev-python/docutils). It will give you |
33 |
> > a rough rendering with a standard style, i.e. kinda ugly but enough to |
34 |
> > see if everything works as expected. You'll also see the preamble as big |
35 |
> > mumbo-jumbo on top. |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> > Then, there's glep.py (dev-python/docutils-glep) which adds preamble |
38 |
> > parsing, table of contents and some styling. AFAICS it needs a bit |
39 |
> > handiwork (copying a stylesheet to a relative directory) but it gives |
40 |
> > nice old-school rendering. |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> > Then, you can just take www.gentoo.org and run it locally. It takes |
43 |
> > a little more effort but jekyll is really trivial to set up and run |
44 |
> > locally. Then you see it exactly how it's gonna look on g.o. |
45 |
> > |
46 |
> > As a side note, we may also rename GLEPs to .rst. Then, GitHub will also |
47 |
> > provide out-of-the-box rendering of them. |
48 |
> > |
49 |
> |
50 |
> To preface, I really like the idea to do this in Git. Much as I |
51 |
> appreciate what the wiki team has done, collaboration isn't quite as |
52 |
> smooth on it and as another person mentioned, it's hard to get reviews, |
53 |
> so you get to choose to leave something in your userspace (I liked your |
54 |
> Drafts namespace idea, fwiw) or edit a page anyway and hope for the best. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> That said... Is it wise to rely on Ruby (via Jekyll) for critical |
57 |
> reference documents, given how often minor version bumps in Ruby disrupt |
58 |
> its ecosystem? |
59 |
|
60 |
The point of using ReST (i.e. an established markup) and git |
61 |
(established VCS) is to avoid depending on any particular software to |
62 |
get things working, and to make it easy to replace the guts |
63 |
as necessary. |
64 |
|
65 |
Jekyll is what infra uses at the moment, so I see no reason to reinvent |
66 |
the wheel just to prove the point. |
67 |
|
68 |
> Do we really need the entire www.gentoo.org repository in |
69 |
> order to view and hack on GLEPs? |
70 |
|
71 |
No, you don't. |
72 |
|
73 |
> I see little reason for GLEPs to not be |
74 |
> in their own repository, depending on something more stable than Jekyll |
75 |
> and Ruby. |
76 |
|
77 |
They are, and they don't depend on Ruby at all. In fact, you can view |
78 |
them using a line printer if you like. |
79 |
|
80 |
> Given that the doc tools themselves are written in Python, it |
81 |
> makes more sense (imo) to leverage Gentoo's existing technical |
82 |
> investment in Python and use something like app-text/pelican, which is |
83 |
> equally, if not more capable than Jekyll and will not require pulling in |
84 |
> Ruby just to hack on and preview some text. Every Gentoo system comes |
85 |
> with Python unless you go off the beaten path and know what you're |
86 |
> doing, so that's a bonus, too. |
87 |
|
88 |
See the first part of my reply to R0b0t1. |
89 |
|
90 |
> Of course, this changes if we need some extremely advanced behavior. I'm |
91 |
> not sure how easy it is to build a Pelican plugin, but there's an entire |
92 |
> repo full of them. [1] Pelican also uses a Makefile you can hack on |
93 |
> (even multiple publishing targets), and supports GNU gettext for |
94 |
> translations. |
95 |
> |
96 |
> Or is Jekyll chosen purely because the current website is built with it? |
97 |
> In that case, it at least makes sense despite the heavyweight dependencies. |
98 |
|
99 |
That's exactly the point. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious from what |
100 |
I have written. |
101 |
|
102 |
> If anyone's interested in seeing a mockup of a few GLEPs in Pelican, I |
103 |
> can get that started. |
104 |
|
105 |
You sure can. However, I have serious doubts about the value of |
106 |
establishing yet another framework for a single thing that nobody will |
107 |
afterwards use or maintain. See SMW. |
108 |
|
109 |
> |
110 |
> Whether or not the structure works on GitHub is orthogonal to the |
111 |
> decision. Still, put me down in favor of switching to Git. Thanks for |
112 |
> putting together the proposal. |
113 |
> |
114 |
> [1]: https://github.com/getpelican/pelican-plugins |
115 |
|
116 |
-- |
117 |
Best regards, |
118 |
Michał Górny |