On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 at 18:41 Matthias Bläsing <[email protected]> wrote:
> And before someone says "github will stay forever", sourceforge used > its market value for bad marketing (bundle free software with an > malware installing installer) and if enough money is offered, github > and co will go down the same way. > To be fair they have a rather different business model, but the suggestion was made because it's easy to do *now*, and *because* it's backed by a git repo. It's no more reliant on GitHub than doing the bulk of managing our source code there, and probably easier to move if need be - there are other potential git-based wiki systems we could migrate to (eg. https://github.com/gollum/gollum came up while looking at this), and we could if necessary use some system for triggering a static build on commit ... but, while I agree the website should be a static site, I think a static site and a wiki are somewhat orthogonal things. What are the other options for keeping the essential wiki-ness in your view? Best wishes, Neil -- Neil C Smith Artist & Technologist www.neilcsmith.net Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
