Paul Boddie <paul <at> boddie.org.uk> writes: > > A free-for-all isn't likely to be the best solution for more actively > edited Python documentation, but Wiki solutions undeniably provide a > superior "fast path" for edits by trusted users to be incorporated and > published in accessible end-user documentation.
Agreed. > I'm starting to believe > that there's a certain snobbery about Wiki solutions which lead many > people to develop all sorts of short-term, arcane solutions under the > illusion that something super-special and customised is necessary and > that they have to start virtually from scratch in order to cater to > the ultra-special needs of the target audience; by the time they're > done, no-one's interested any more, except to propose the next legacy > system in the making. Not sure why you think it's snobbery... There are certain tacit expectations regarding the docs: - that they are versioned with the source tree (because, often, changes in documentation will be synchronized with changes in behaviour / functionality, because we must maintain documentation for several versions at once, because you want to use the same kind of merging that is used between different branches) - that they can be used offline, rebuilt in different formats, etc. - that you don't need a Web server (even locally) to navigate through them - that proposed changes are to be reviewed by maintainers (core developers) before they get actually committed I'm not sure of any existing wiki system which fits the bill. So, while I agree that the current situation can present a high threshold for occasional doc-only contributions, there doesn't seem to be a simple solution to improve things. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
