Ahmad Khalifa left as an exercise for the reader: > Wikis have their own version control and they're meant for a much wider > audience. I think general documentation definitely belongs on a wiki, not > git. Edit, fix typo, done in 30 seconds :)
there are of course wiki-git bridges, at least for MediaWiki: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git-remote-mediawiki https://github.com/Eccenux/wiki-to-git https://github.com/Git-Mediawiki/Git-Mediawiki there's also the (unmaintained) FUSE implementation (not particularly relevant here, but illustrative of the ecosystem's breadth): https://wikipediafs.sourceforge.net/ fwiw, i've maintained several public-facing MediaWiki installations, my largest (dankwiki[0]) having run on the same install base since 2008. it's been largely a pleasure; i doubt i spend more than five hours annually on its administration, almost entirely for updates or adding new plugins. upstream has been friendly and helpful the two times i've engaged with them on IRC. there's a plugin for just about anything one might want to do, from transcluding Bugzilla queries to inline Youtube video to integrating with donation services. in addition, anyone with Wikipedia editing experience can immediately apply it to a MediaWiki. the only unpleasant aspects have been PHP (very rare, but sometimes i need go change properties of my PHP installation) and esoteric plugins falling out of sync with the main distribution. it also requires a mysql backend, and default search capabilities are of the garbage variety (though this has improved in recent years, to the point where i no longer consider SphinxSearch a mandatory coinstall, and indeed no longer use it myself). development is healthy and ongoing, and comfortably backed by the Wikimedia Foundation. but i have no familiarity with Debian requirements, especially surrounding authentication. --nick [0] https://nick-black.com -- nick black -=- https://nick-black.com to make an apple pie from scratch, you need first invent a universe.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
