On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Johan Sørensen <[email protected]> wrote: > > I almost went with a similar approach at first myself, my main mental > stumbling blocks where: > 1) I wanted it to be editable through the web. More often than not I > can't be bothered to clone a repository locally, make the change, > submit requests for upstream merge if it's only a small spelling fix. > 2) Everyone may not enjoy having everyone able to commit to a blessed > directory in the repository.
Both valid concerns. In my case I'm not interested in making it publicly editable (via the web). In fact I didn't even call my implementation a "wiki," I called it "docs." A wiki could be a separate addon for this use case. It looks like we're trying to solve different problems here. I'm more interested in a publicly browsable and dev edited "official" docs that a true wiki. On further contemplation, what you did probably makes more sense for Gitorious. But, that's one of the great things about open-source. You scratch your itch and I'll scratch mine. -- ---- Waylan Limberg [email protected] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Gitorious" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gitorious?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
