On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:06:12PM +0200, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy
<kchamart(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 09:46:56AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 05:47:31AM +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > A related topic: At a future point in time, the libvirt Wiki could
> > > probably be migrated to Git-based static-site generator project
> > > Middleman? Most recently, two projects that I know of have made the
> > > switch (RDO Project & oVirt).
> >
> > That seems to completely defeat the point of having a wiki. We already
> > have a static website maintained in GIT and get essentially zero end
> > user contributions to it. A wiki is intended to be quick & easy for
> > people to just directly create content without having to learn any
> > tools or process beyond their web browser
>
> Fair enough. Taking myself as an example, I have written/edited a few
> libvirt wiki pages than touching in the in-tree docs. I anticipated
> you'd say this (about having an easy way to quickly write a doc).
>
Apparently Github pull requests and editing in Markdown are the new thing,
and people somehow find it usable.
It also brings them somehow closer to development, having to enjoy the
finesse of working with Git, etc...
Yeah, that's what I've heard so in other projects. At least, I see RDO
community folks seem to be happy with this approach.
The main advantage is that their is review to the content being
edited
proactively.
I agree. In a Wiki, while it makes it easier to add new content, it's
also trivial to add misleading info with no proper review.
FWIW, for Mediawiki, I locally just write in Markdown, and convert it to
Mediawiki syntax via `pandoc`:
$ pandoc -f markdown -t Mediawiki foo.md -o foo.wiki
--
/kashyap