| 1 |
On 03/07/18 21:01, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 09:20:53PM +0200, Jonas Stein wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> I don't care that we have a wiki, but can we please look into killing |
| 4 |
>>> mediawiki and look at something with a git backend? |
| 5 |
>> I think the wiki is very useful and should remain. |
| 6 |
> Like I said, there are wiki packages out there like gollum, ikiwiki, and |
| 7 |
> probably others which would allow editing of content via text files and |
| 8 |
> use vcs's for version control of the changes, so I'm not advocating for |
| 9 |
> shutting down the wiki. I think we should have one that is more |
| 10 |
> accessible to users who want to use different interfaces. We shouldn't |
| 11 |
> be forcing users to use a full web browser just to contribute to the |
| 12 |
> wiki. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>>> It would be very nice to be able to edit wiki pages in markdown or another similar format |
| 15 |
>>> and use git to control the changes instead of editing in a browser. |
| 16 |
>> I think it is more efficient to convert your yearly contributions to the |
| 17 |
>> wiki [1] manually from markdown to mediawiki, instead to convert the |
| 18 |
>> existent wiki pages to anything plus setup a new engine and configure |
| 19 |
>> user accounts. |
| 20 |
> If that is converted from markdown, all you would have to do is use the |
| 21 |
> markdown directly if the new wiki supports it. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>> Btw: Would a conversion to another wiki mean that we get another long |
| 24 |
>> footer on every wikipage "This page was edited by... do not remove..."? |
| 25 |
> I have no idea about that, but that alone shouldn't stop this from |
| 26 |
> happening. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
>> For the special case of the Gentoo Manual: |
| 29 |
>> I think the Gentoo Manual is better maintained in a git repository, |
| 30 |
>> because it was initially written like a book and sometimes it is better |
| 31 |
>> to make PRs for the manual. |
| 32 |
> I don't really see the manual as a special case. We should use the same |
| 33 |
> interface for everything. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> William |
| 36 |
1) I think this idea was floated before, and failed before .. |
| 37 |
2) Existing wiki team are badly understaffed, how would this improve |
| 38 |
things? How would new maintainers be registered and managed? |
| 39 |
3) Are you volunteering to implement this change yourself (infra are |
| 40 |
equally understaffed) and manage the change and transition, in addition |
| 41 |
to your existing commitments? |
Archives