Mixing my replies in a single message, sorry :-) On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Ron Savage <r...@savage.net.au> wrote:
> Hi Mark > > On 30/10/12 07:16, Mark Stosberg wrote: > > > I appreciate the "outsourcing" of this maintenance work to Github, even > > if it's means the wiki software itself isn't open source. > IMO, It is 'good' to be able to focus on the core mission of the application. > > Github does allow the wiki to be accessed as a git repo, which provides > > a reasonable "exit plan" if were to become an unsuitable place to host > > in the future. > ++ on this point. Not having the data locked in, and being able to transfer the history is, in my mind at least, a good thing. > OK. I just had another look at that wiki, and it looks good, so I'd say > just take the decision and switch. We don't need a long discussion about > it. Not everything has to be Open Source, or Perl. Think OSes, > compilers, web servers, db servers, email servers, etc etc. > While a cgi-app-branded version of a wiki could be a good thing, I do agree that lacking other *easily implemented and maintained* alternatives (or even just the tuits to manage it), that offloading the maintenance of this to a location where it is part of their core competence is a good thing. Is there any thought (or even value) to migrating the current data into the git wiki history? Given sufficient tuits (and the original data - can be after the cutover is done), I would be willing to help with submitting a pull request on this. --mlx ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################