I was thinking more of a docs folder turned into wiki as well, but you
are right, that would mean each fork would have its own copy of the
wiki with minor differences that would confuse, so instead of having
the wiki be related to the repository it makes more sense to have it
in the project itself. As you're using Git as the backend of the
project-wide wiki, it could be abstracted as a special repository that
the project owner would maintain as he would with any other repo, with
merge requests and all. That way people could 'git clone' the whole
wiki repo and work offline with it.
I was trying to make it run here but I am getting this error:
oMethodError (You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
The error occurred while evaluating nil.git):
/app/controllers/pages_controller.rb:27:in `show'
Seems like I need to create something. Can you give me a hand?
On Jan 14, 10:56 am, Yuri Takhteyev <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I just push my git-wikis branch to the mainline repository. In a
> > nutshell it's a wiki for the project, where the contents are stored in
> > a special git repository. The wiki is editable by any user who is
> > logged into the site.
>
> This sounds like a great feature for gitorious. Is there a live demo
> somewhere?
>
> I've been working on the same thing incidentally, though from another
> side and in Lua: a wiki/cms that can now use a git repository as a
> backend (http://sputnik.freewisdom.org/). The nice thing about git as
> the backend is that it allows you to make simple changes through the
> web interface (like any other wiki), but also gives you all the power
> of git when you need it. E.g., you can edit your wiki on the plane and
> then merge your changes with whatever changes your visitors may have
> done through the web interface.
>
> > * allow anyone with a registered ssh key to actually push to the wiki
> > repository
> > (** my paranoia nags me about accountability issues here, what do you
> > think?)
>
> Allowing _anyone_ to push changes might be problematic. For me it's
> not a problem of accountability (git will log who made the changes,
> right?), but of control. You do want to be able to keep at least some
> pages closed. In fact, depending on how it's implemented, even
> allowing pulling may be an issue.
>
> In my case, I store _everything_ as versioned wiki nodes, including
> all configurations, user accounts, etc. So, when git is used as the
> backend, then _everything_ is stored as files in the git repository.
> Pulling the respository means pulling passwords (shadowed, but still),
> user permissions, etc. So, in my scheme, having access to the
> repository is equivalent to having admin access to the wiki. (By
> contrast, when you are editing through the web interface, there is
> system of permissions that determines who can see what.) For the
> gitorious-based wiki, though, it might make sense to keep admin stuff
> out of the wiki in order to be able to allow all users at least to
> pull all the content through git.
>
> - yuri
>
> --http://sputnik.freewisdom.org/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
