-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Jason Dagit wrote: > Hello, > A Haskeller by the name of John Macfarlane has created a nice wik engine in > Haskell on top of Happs and a distributed version control system. You can > see it here or read the original release announcement: > http://johnmacfarlane.net:5001/ > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2008-November/050336.html > > Now, it just so happens that the backend isn't Darcs, but I thought I read > somewhere that the author is open to having a darcs backend if we provide a > programmatic way to invoke darcs (aka libdarcs). > Given that the wiki is using a vcs in the background it is possible to > author pages using just the version control backend. > Also it supports code snippets with syntax highlighting and LaTeX math stuff > and exports to tons of formats (including latex, meaning PDF output probably > isn't a hard feature to add if it could be done server side from the latex > output). Internally it uses Pandoc making the input and output > possibilities quite numerable. reST is even an option; but it seems > markdown is the default input type. > So, this is me publicly suggesting that we consider, or evaluate, the > potential use of gitit for the darcs project. Here are some of the reasons > why I think this is a good idea: > 1) Assuming that the darcs project is user #0 of libdarcs this could be used > to give us user #1. > 2) Trent has mentioned he would like a wiki engine that can be used without > a web browser on multiple occasions. > 3) With support for both Haskell code and math we could potentially move the > entire manual, including patch theory sections, to the wiki reducing the > barrier to documentation authoring beyond the current threshold. > 4) We could script the creation of the pdf manual from the wiki content, > same with the manpages. > 5) In my opinion the existing feature set of gitit makes it superior already > to what we are currently using. > Potential problems: > a) gitit is still young. > b) libdarcs isn't ready *today* to be the backend. > c) Porting the existing wiki content. > For (a) maybe we should play it safe and wait X months? How about X = 3-6 > to see if gitit needs to stabilize? For (b) I'd say git is popular and > respectable, but I think we should dogfood our own vcs whenever we can > because of the message that sends. This means we need to figure out how to > get libdarcs to work for gitit and find out if John would be okay > maintaining a backend layer for libdarcs. I bet we could find a way to > automate, or mostly, automate (c). > What do others think? > Thanks! > Jason
I too have cast an avaricious eye over gitit. I am unsure that we need libdarcs, however. Take a look at the module which handles the actual Git integration for gitit: http://github.com/jgm/gitit/tree/master/Gitit%2FGit.hs It is basically 10 functions which are not much more than shell-scripting. Most of them look like they could easily be replaced by Darcs equivalents. The only ones that look really different are the ones which use the SHA1 identifiers, and presumably for Darcs that would be replaced by simply the name of a patch. - -- gwern -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREKAAYFAkkrgp0ACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oJOugCfUoAqHbqR5my14JAtKDXRj0Mr l+IAnRKIHHJ1Tm0QC4YsavUhW4B1cmtj =Gh0s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
