Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Straw poll on wiki replacement
Re: Straw poll on wiki replacement
From: Dominik Riebeling via rockbox-dev <rockbox-dev_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
> 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
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.
Received on 2020-06-28