On 4 April 2010 01:37, Sebastian Pipping <sp...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Btw was it Fedora having moved from MoinMoin to MediaWiki? > I remember something like that, could be erring though.
You are right. Here are some relevant links a quick Google search turned up for me: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/31 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WikiRequirements https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-infrastructure-list/2008-February/msg00085.html It looks like their main concerns were performance, both in terms of scalability and search (the default internal MoinMoin search engine is notoriously slow). Makes you wonder how Ubuntu manage to use MoinMoin apparently succesfully. The conclusion (in my eyes) is that MediaWiki is likely to be the best choice and easiest to set up for our purposes. Unless someone comes with another proposal and good arguments to go with something else, I'd say we should stick to MediaWiki. >>> Here's another idea: >>> The German Wikipedia uses a concept called "sighted revisions". If you >>> visit an article without logging in you will see the latest sighted >>> revision, as an identified user you can also view the latest revision. >> >> That's an interesting idea, which we should consider. > > I'm not sure if that a thing to go for. Drawbacks: > - More work (whereas we could use more manpower already) > - New bottlenecks > > Couldn't we just make two big "namespaces" > > 'devs' -- Developers only > 'registered' -- Full edit access to any registered user > > in the same wiki and have pages be in either namespace, reflecting the > namespace in the page name or path somehow? > > I expect that to be > - easy to implement > - providing a good mix of openness and quality control Actually this came up in earlier discussions as well, and there was an in my opinion valid concern about the status and quality of user generated documentation, especially if we open it to the wider public as we are proposing here. I think it would be a good thing to give certain revisions of a certain page an offical "stamp of approval". It would probably be educational to see how other distros handle that. Does anyone want to volunteer to find that out? >> GuideXML documents are often experienced as an unnecessary >> barrier. > > I think you should clearly state again that this is not gonna replace > GuideXML, just migrate a few use cases where a wiki fits better. > This is what you aim for, right? A wiki can fulfill several purposes for us: 1. Easy collaboration among devs, for brainstorming, developing new documentation, assembling upcoming meeting agendas, and so on [for which there currently is not really any obvious place] 2. A place for users to collaborate on and contribute to documentation [which is currently covered by the unofficial wiki] 3. A place to host and maintain our existing documentation [which is currently in GuideXML] For me the most important and immediate need is number 1. This is the need that came up several times recently, and the push for me to try to make this happen. I am not pushing for our existing documentation to be migrated into a wiki at this point. But I think that once the place is there, and it functions well, it would be the obvious next step to do so. As I said before, the barrier to contributing and maintaining documentation is much higher in the case of GuideXML, so it doesn't really make sense to keep that around when we have a better solution. I know there are people who do not agree with me on this last point, which is why I see that as a later and separate goal. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer