1 |
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 09:09:16PM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
2 |
> On 03/07/18 21:01, William Hubbs wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 09:20:53PM +0200, Jonas Stein wrote: |
4 |
> >>> I don't care that we have a wiki, but can we please look into killing |
5 |
> >>> mediawiki and look at something with a git backend? |
6 |
> >> I think the wiki is very useful and should remain. |
7 |
> > Like I said, there are wiki packages out there like gollum, ikiwiki, and |
8 |
> > probably others which would allow editing of content via text files and |
9 |
> > use vcs's for version control of the changes, so I'm not advocating for |
10 |
> > shutting down the wiki. I think we should have one that is more |
11 |
> > accessible to users who want to use different interfaces. We shouldn't |
12 |
> > be forcing users to use a full web browser just to contribute to the |
13 |
> > wiki. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> >>> It would be very nice to be able to edit wiki pages in markdown or another similar format |
16 |
> >>> and use git to control the changes instead of editing in a browser. |
17 |
> >> I think it is more efficient to convert your yearly contributions to the |
18 |
> >> wiki [1] manually from markdown to mediawiki, instead to convert the |
19 |
> >> existent wiki pages to anything plus setup a new engine and configure |
20 |
> >> user accounts. |
21 |
> > If that is converted from markdown, all you would have to do is use the |
22 |
> > markdown directly if the new wiki supports it. |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> >> Btw: Would a conversion to another wiki mean that we get another long |
25 |
> >> footer on every wikipage "This page was edited by... do not remove..."? |
26 |
> > I have no idea about that, but that alone shouldn't stop this from |
27 |
> > happening. |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> >> For the special case of the Gentoo Manual: |
30 |
> >> I think the Gentoo Manual is better maintained in a git repository, |
31 |
> >> because it was initially written like a book and sometimes it is better |
32 |
> >> to make PRs for the manual. |
33 |
> > I don't really see the manual as a special case. We should use the same |
34 |
> > interface for everything. |
35 |
> > |
36 |
> > William |
37 |
> 1) I think this idea was floated before, and failed before .. |
38 |
|
39 |
That's not a reason for not floating it again. |
40 |
|
41 |
> 2) Existing wiki team are badly understaffed, how would this improve |
42 |
> things? How would new maintainers be registered and managed? |
43 |
|
44 |
It improves things by offering more flexable ways for users to edit the |
45 |
wiki. if you want to use a browser you can, or you can use something |
46 |
like git and edit the content that way. |
47 |
|
48 |
I don't know for sure how maintainers would be registered and managed, |
49 |
but I don't know that on mw either. |
50 |
|
51 |
> 3) Are you volunteering to implement this change yourself (infra are |
52 |
> equally understaffed) and manage the change and transition, in addition |
53 |
> to your existing commitments? |
54 |
|
55 |
I'm not on the infra team, so I would have to be added there to be able |
56 |
to do it I guess, but I would be willing to assist if I could. |
57 |
|
58 |
William |