On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 17:42:52 -0400 Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Shortly saying, devmanual in wiki would mostly consist of HTML tagsoup > > intermixed with wiki text. For the very simple reason that MediaWiki > > lags markup for as basic things as inline code and requires you to use > > HTML instead. Not something I'd use for anything as fundamental > > as devmanual. > > Rosetta Code (my site) runs MediaWiki. I can attest to the terrible > thing that is MW syntax. That said, we did ultimately come up with > workarounds for 98% of the problems. (Most of the remaining 2% are > spammers...and that comes down to a question of strongly you lock the > thing down.) Do you believe that the effort was worth it? As far as I can see, you worked around issues with a particularly bad software for your use. Instead, you could work on a good piece of software which could help others. > I've submitted patches to Gentoo docs before. Honestly, I found it a > pain; I'm not accustomed to that particular process. Admittedly, this > is one of those cases where I simply lack an attainable skill. I'm not saying that our XML forks are good. I'd honestly just use reStructuredText which is basically 'good enough' to write articles efficiently while keeping them readable. > If nothing else, I'd love to see the docs all reside in Git; I could > fork to my Github account and generate pull requests from there. A > proper maintainer could review the pull request and decide whether or > not to merge it. That would be a much more comfortable workflow, IMO. > (Heck, I wouldn't mind migrating RC to a similar workflow; I'd just > have to migrate gigabytes worth of wikitext history to a format with > new semantics...) Yes, considering the development of modern git solutions, old wikis could be at least partially replaced by it. I think the github wikis are the best example here, with their best feature being the ability to choose markup yourself (however, to be honest, some of the markups aren't implemented really well there). However, that's the only thing which github did quite good. The quality of forking and pull requests on github are a whole different story, and something not really suited for real-life workflow. In that case, bitbucket is definitely superior to them. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
