On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:17:54AM +0200, andy m wrote: > > 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. > > 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.
You're wrong. The vast majority of open source projects use a static site generator or CMS that works like one to craft curated documentation. Even if they have a wiki they don't use the wiki as their primary docs (at least not for long). I'm sure could find exceptions, but exceptions don't disprove the general trend. This is *very* true in the Python and Ruby worlds where nobody sane tries to use a wiki for documentation anymore. -- Zed A. Shaw http://zedshaw.com/ _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
