On Sun, 2016-09-25 at 20:15 +0200, Thomas Endt wrote:
> What would be the official LEDE logo for the wiki?
>
> This one?
> https://www.lede-project.org/logo/logo_small.png
>
> If yes: Can I have this in a bigger size, please?
>
The best place to start is here: https://github.com/lede-project/we
What would be the official LEDE logo for the wiki?
This one?
https://www.lede-project.org/logo/logo_small.png
If yes: Can I have this in a bigger size, please?
FYI: I changed the wiki template to monobook, but other templates are
available [1], up to creating our own one.
Comments are welcome.
Wiki has been set up: https://wiki.lede-project.org/
You can now register yourself and contribute in building the LEDE wiki.
Discussions are available either in the wiki (lets see how good this works)
or in this mailing list. Please use '[LEDE-DEV][wiki]' in the subject of
your email to enable ea
> von Jo-Philipp Wich
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. September 2016 00:14
> - Assemble a team of volunteers to maintain the wiki
In progress. Thread started for teambuilding:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2016-September/002807.html
> - Among those volunteers who want to work on the w
Hi,
On 09/15/16 20:02, Thomas Endt wrote:
>> I think we should avoid forums for now and should lay out the wiki's
>> plans in a wiki page and activate a plugin (there are at least a couple
>> for docuwiki) to make a "talk" page or "discussion" page like
>> Wikipedia's for wiki volunteer interactio
On 16/09/2016 18:47, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>
>
> On 09/16/2016 06:23 AM, John Crispin wrote:
>>
>> On 15/09/2016 22:41, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>>> Note that I'm not talking about the wiki. That was not a major issue as
>>> being a separate thing it can be set up unofficially, or whatever.
>>> I am
On 09/16/2016 06:23 AM, John Crispin wrote:
>
> On 15/09/2016 22:41, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>> Note that I'm not talking about the wiki. That was not a major issue as
>> being a separate thing it can be set up unofficially, or whatever.
>> I am just arguing about principles here, as I'm spotting a
On 09/16/2016 06:25 AM, John Crispin wrote:
>
> On 15/09/2016 22:50, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>> I said that for that it's better a "talk/discussion" page on a wiki,
>> because a forum needs more time investment than a wiki to be done right
>> and should be treated as its own project with its own volu
I will be a contributor/user of whatever wiki is provided and have used both
Dokuwiki and the Semantic MediaWiki (used by WikiDevi) as I’ve contributed to
both the OpenWrt Wiki and MediaWiki. I think my preference would be for
DokuWiki.
I have experience installing OpenWrt on over 50 differe
On 15/09/2016 22:50, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> I said that for that it's better a "talk/discussion" page on a wiki,
> because a forum needs more time investment than a wiki to be done right
> and should be treated as its own project with its own volunteers and so
> on, not as an appendage of the
On 15/09/2016 22:41, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> Note that I'm not talking about the wiki. That was not a major issue as
> being a separate thing it can be set up unofficially, or whatever.
> I am just arguing about principles here, as I'm spotting a possibly bad
> pattern where the same bad practic
On 09/15/2016 07:21 AM, John Crispin wrote:
>
> On 15/09/2016 00:10, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>> I think we should avoid forums for now and should lay out the wiki's
>> plans in a wiki page and activate a plugin (there are at least a couple
>> for docuwiki) to make a "talk" page or "discussion" page
On 09/15/2016 07:20 AM, John Crispin wrote:
>
> On 15/09/2016 01:11, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>>
>> On 09/14/2016 12:27 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>>> Hi Alberto,
>>>
>>> don't hold back yourself waiting for a response from "the LEDE devs" -
>>> those who care about a wiki will likely endorse whateve
On 15/09/2016 20:52, Thomas Endt wrote:
>> von John Crispin
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. September 2016 07:20
>
>> if you need a strong leader to tell you what you can(not) do,
>> then you are in the wrong place buddy.
>
> I think the reason for asking the devs about their approval or at least
> von John Crispin
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. September 2016 07:20
> if you need a strong leader to tell you what you can(not) do,
> then you are in the wrong place buddy.
I think the reason for asking the devs about their approval or at least
their opinion was just respect. In the absence of an
> I think we should avoid forums for now and should lay out the wiki's
> plans in a wiki page and activate a plugin (there are at least a couple
> for docuwiki) to make a "talk" page or "discussion" page like
> Wikipedia's for wiki volunteer interactions.
Interesting idea.
The "discussion" page is
That's why I am an adept of hierarchy or at least have well defined
who is responsible for what, otherwise when something is sent to all
nobody will care much to respond unless that affects him/her directly
in some way.
I'm not talking about someone giving orders and others following it,
but just h
On 15/09/2016 00:10, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> I think we should avoid forums for now and should lay out the wiki's
> plans in a wiki page and activate a plugin (there are at least a couple
> for docuwiki) to make a "talk" page or "discussion" page like
> Wikipedia's for wiki volunteer interactio
On 15/09/2016 01:11, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>
>
> On 09/14/2016 12:27 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> Hi Alberto,
>>
>> don't hold back yourself waiting for a response from "the LEDE devs" -
>> those who care about a wiki will likely endorse whatever good solution
>> is proposed and the rest either
On 09/14/2016 12:27 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Alberto,
>
> don't hold back yourself waiting for a response from "the LEDE devs" -
> those who care about a wiki will likely endorse whatever good solution
> is proposed and the rest either has no opinion or time to participate in
> the decisio
On 09/14/2016 10:31 PM, Thomas Endt wrote:
> I advise to setup a Dokuwiki, if no one else has good reasons
> against it. Please slow me down in case I'm going too fast.
Ok for me. As long as the theme is something modern and readable,
registered users/gardeners can rollboack edits, and there is
> From what I can see the next steps to get an actual wiki up and running
> would be:
>
> - Assemble a team of volunteers to maintain the wiki
Let me be the first to offer my services as wiki admin to LEDE as I did to
OpenWrt.
ssh root access would be helpful. At least I need access to
/conf/us
On 14/09/2016 00:27, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Alberto,
>
> don't hold back yourself waiting for a response from "the LEDE devs" -
> those who care about a wiki will likely endorse whatever good solution
> is proposed and the rest either has no opinion or time to participate in
> the decision
Hi Alberto,
don't hold back yourself waiting for a response from "the LEDE devs" -
those who care about a wiki will likely endorse whatever good solution
is proposed and the rest either has no opinion or time to participate in
the decision making processes :)
Part of the reason that there is no w
Hi,
it is great to see that there is some movement in the wiki discussion :)
My personal view (and I suppose that of some other LEDE people too) is
that the decision on what wiki software to use, on how to organize
submissions and on how to structure it is at the sole discretion of the
people wil
Hi,
> I would definetely wait for Jow to answer on this subject. AFAIK he is quite
> busy these days.
> A LEDE wiki should be part of the LEDE infrastructure, with proper control
> and multiple admins, in order to avoid situations like at the beginning of
> this year.
>
> Give Jow a little time t
On 09/13/2016 06:50 PM, Thomas Endt wrote:
>> We got no answer from LEDE devs apart from jow saying he had some space
>> on the server and asking what wiki people prefers, but that discussion
>> died up quickly.
>> I'd personally prefer your "jump the gun" approach where someone starts
>> the wik
> We got no answer from LEDE devs apart from jow saying he had some space
> on the server and asking what wiki people prefers, but that discussion
> died up quickly.
> I'd personally prefer your "jump the gun" approach where someone starts
> the wiki unofficially and all those that want to contrib
On 09/12/2016 10:42 PM, Jan-Tarek Butt wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Yeah, I'm also willing to dedicate some hours per week to wiki gardening,
>> whatever wiki technology is chosen.
> Shall I do set up a dokuwiki on our open wireless community infrastructure?
>
> cheers
> Tarek
Ok for me but I'm not a LEDE
A while ago in the begining of the project, put my time and myself to
be one of the responsible to set it up, give it LEDE's face, and start
transfering content from OpenWrt but unfortunatelly almost nobody
bored much at the time. It seemed that if you are not a "known person"
you might not get muc
Hi,
> Yeah, I'm also willing to dedicate some hours per week to wiki gardening,
> whatever wiki technology is chosen.
Shall I do set up a dokuwiki on our open wireless community infrastructure?
cheers
Tarek
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Yeah, I'm also willing to dedicate some hours per week to wiki
gardening, whatever wiki technology is chosen.
On 09/10/2016 02:26 AM, J Mo wrote:
On 09/09/2016 05:17 PM, nobody in particular wrote:
we should
Less "We oughta"
More "I will"
__
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016, Aaron Z wrote:
Being as:
1. OpenWRT is on DocuWiki (and it seems to work fairly well)
This would seem to be a major factor. There will be enough work copying things
and checking what's current. Eliminating the need to change links/markup/etc
would seem to make it a no-bra
@Aaron Z
> Agreed.
> I am familiar enough with flashing, configuring and Wiki editing that
> I am comfortable/willing to work on editing/cleanup of whatever wiki
> is chosen, however, my availability will be spotty until Nov as we are
> about to enter the busy season at work (12+ hour days M-F and
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:26 PM, J Mo wrote:
> On 09/09/2016 05:17 PM, nobody in particular wrote:
>> we should
> Less "We oughta"
> More "I will"
Agreed.
I am familiar enough with flashing, configuring and Wiki editing that
I am comfortable/willing to work on editing/cleanup of whatever wiki
is ch
On 09/09/2016 05:17 PM, nobody in particular wrote:
we should
Less "We oughta"
More "I will"
___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Bill Moffitt wrote:
> I'll throw out another candidate: Twiki (twiki.org).
> I have used it, I wasn't crazy about it, but it had some nice features. And
> I cannot say with certainty how it would map into our use for LEDE.
If going that route, IMO we should use Fosw
I'll throw out another candidate: Twiki (twiki.org).
I have used it, I wasn't crazy about it, but it had some nice features.
And I cannot say with certainty how it would map into our use for LEDE.
I haven't used DokuWiki, so I can't say how it stacks up.
An admittedly weak endorsement, and I
Hello Folks!
I'm new to this project and excited to be here. I used to work for the
Linux Foundation as a sysadmin where part of my job was to curate and
run infra for the wikis of several open source projects sponsored by
the LF.
I am no longer employed or associated with them, but I would love
> I recommend we use Dokuwiki as the primary means of maintaining the
> LEDE documentation.
That would be my first choice, too.
However, if there is another wiki that has significant advantages over
Dokuwiki, I wouldn't mind to try something new.
One thing to keep in mind when chosing a new wiki
I am glad to see such strong support for a wiki. A wiki gives power to
interested people to add information/correct entries and make the LEDE project
look better.
There will always be problems associated with a wiki. Those of us who watched
the OpenWrt wiki have seen them all. But a small grou
41 matches
Mail list logo
