From: Dominik Riebeling via rockbox <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 22:21:24 +0200

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 12:10 AM Solomon Peachy via rockbox-dev
<rockbox-dev_at_cool.haxx.se> wrote:
> The big question in my mind is if we replace it with another wiki engine
> or some sort of static site generated out of a git repo -- and
> ultimately that comes down to workflow.

I'm fine with both. The obvious advantage of a "real" wiki is live
editing, and I don't need a real development-like environment to
contribute. Using a static generator brings it down to something like
the manual is now -- documentation treated as code.

> At the end of the day, the result is the same (revision-controlled
> templated knowledgebase) with a roughly similar level of migration
> effort (new template, migrating foswiki markup, server-side
> infrastructure, etc etc..)

True. From the contributor-friendliness having a wiki is nicer, and it
even allows to make changes on-the-go (i.e. without having a proper
text editor + git around, made use of that a few times in the past.)

> I use 'nikola' static site generator for my personal site, and already
> host a dokuwiki instance that is vastly more performant and stable than
> foswiki.

If dokuwiki is fine for you using that with the git backend basically
gives us the best of both worlds. And since it uses plaintext files
github wiki is just a markup conversion away -- if we ever want to go
that way (not saying that we should).

About the forums: it has always been stated that knowledge should go
to the wiki, since it usually gets lost in the forums. I still think
this makes sense, but unfortunately finding information in foswiki
isn't simple either.


 - Dominik
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
FAQ: http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/GeneralFAQ
Etiquette: http://www.rockbox.org/mail/etiquette.html
Received on 2020-06-28