> That's a dogmatic assertion that confuses the two use cases. The use > case for wiki in fossil is "user inputed things to display, sometimes > docs". The use case for html in /doc/tip is "generated and crafted > documentation by trusted people with commit rights." Two totally > different things.
Hmmm. Speaking only for myself and as someone starting to evaluate fossil, I do not want two uses. The wiki is to be used to develop "working notes" which will form the basis of formal documentation. If fossil is successful, the formal documentation will be present alongside the code. In our case, "working notes" involve quite a few equations surrounded by somewhat loose wording which needs revision when moved into the more formal documentation but hopefully contains the key points. I am still pondering the options (I know little about the web or web software) but I suspect Fossil-wiki is not a goer though wikipedia-wiki (whatever that is) might be. To be honest, the worst case scenario is to ignore the wiki and continue as usual writing documentation in a doc directory. This would make browsing a bit more time consuming but we don't have that at moment and so it is not going to be missed. The distributed bug tracking is a plus (do not need a fancy one just a step up from a todo list). The distributed source control is about equal to mercurial, perhaps a bit rougher round the edges. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
