On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 07:09:50PM +0100, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Willy, > > Am 02.01.2018 um 17:53 schrieb Willy Tarreau: > > Oh bad, you're right. I wanted to even remove the "main features" part as > > it's been totally outdated now. This page starts to age a lot. I really > > think we should replace it all with a wiki so that many more people could > > participate to the maintenance and keeping it up to date :-/ > > > > I'm not sure whether a fully automated Wiki would reduce the maintenance > work, because of possible vandalism and you would need to keep the > software up to date.
In fact I don't worry too much about vandalism if we require an authentication from one of the main public providers (eg: google, github etc). Keeping the software up to date can be cumbersome except if we find a packaged one giving rolling updates (eg: a docker image or something like this), or a hosted solution. We do use mediawiki on the same machine and while I can't judge for the maintenance pain, it's really convenient to use and usable by everyone given that it's the same soft used on the #1 world-wide site. I'd very much like to stick to this one for this main reason. > Is that a fully static page? Yes, except the versions, dates and links which are updated via scripts which run "sed" on the file every night. > You then could put that into git, configure > a `post-receive` hook or set `git config receive.denyCurrentBranch > updateInstead` [1] and accept patches like you do for haproxy itself. That could also be an option. But I'm pretty sure that a number of users could participate without even having to use git. For example look at the architecture manual. It's now 12 years old. Several of us have said a few times already that we need to rewrite it from scratch. The reason why it never happens is that it takes a huge amount of work just to catch up with what we currently have. With an easily accessible wiki, some end users finding a solution to a problem could simply figure that instead of documenting their solution on their internal documentation tool, they could as well put it on the haproxy wiki and share it with others. It could be a nice way to replace the arch manual over time, and this without limiting ourselves to the smaller category of people able to use git. I didn't intend to start up the discussion on this subject here nor now by the way, I was just thinking loud :-) Cheers, Willy
