1 |
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 01:02:55PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> Hi, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> TL;DR: MediaWiki sucks, SMW even more; let's start moving important |
5 |
> stuff out of it and into something sane. What replacements do you |
6 |
> suggest? |
7 |
> |
8 |
> |
9 |
> There was a long period during which we've attempted to move a lot of |
10 |
> Gentoo out of fancy XML files and into Wiki. This happened for project |
11 |
> docs, this happened for entire project structure and more more stuff. |
12 |
> On the other hand devmanual is still using fancy XML files in its own |
13 |
> git repository, and the main g.o site is using Jekyll. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Now that the main SMW proponent is MIA, I think it's time we look back |
16 |
> and think whether what has happened over time was good. I think it |
17 |
> wasn't, and I have a number of arguments to support that: |
18 |
> |
19 |
> 1. SMW lacks proper review platform, and the workflow is not suitable |
20 |
> for project docs. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> 2. It has a pretty high entry barrier, and is poorly documented. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> 3. Preview is half-working, and insufficient for more complex work. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> 4. It lacks proper offline editing capabilities. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> 5. The watching (mail notifications) are awfully cumbersome. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> 6. It is slow. |
31 |
> |
32 |
|
33 |
7. Related to the high entry barrier, it has an even higher entry |
34 |
barrier for accessibility. Editing documentation in a browser is unwieldy |
35 |
at best and impossible at worst. |
36 |
|
37 |
I looked at the git mediawiki module as an alternative, but it is |
38 |
extremely unwieldy as well and would put a lot of load on the server. |
39 |
|
40 |
I, too, realize that it would take a lot of time and effort, but I would |
41 |
definitely support migrating *all* of our documentation out of mw into some kind |
42 |
of flat files (rst? markdown? some other format?) which could be |
43 |
edited/previewed locally and rendered on the web easily. |
44 |
|
45 |
William |