Github + wiki. I can help. I have content (all devices list, easy explanation of owserver/owfs relationship, etc.) that I will gladly contribute.
Colin On 9/7/2016 12:23 PM, Johan Ström wrote: > On 07/09/16 10:48, Jan Kandziora wrote: >> Am 07.09.2016 um 07:15 schrieb Johan Ström: >>> How did it go with the earlier discussed new homepage/wiki where we can >>> document these things?.. :) Seems every other day these questions pop up >>> on the list. >>> >> I think the most important improvement in documentation would be if we >> have it editable by more than one or two persons. That's why I suggested >> to start a wiki for it. To keep it simple for people to join the >> documentation team. >> >> To setup a new website in place of the old one, we have to contact Mike >> Kalist and Paul Alfille. They should give the okay first to use the >> information from the current website as the base. > > Well, Paul *did* reply last time this was up, asking how he could help > in transition (https://sourceforge.net/p/owfs/mailman/message/35247513/) > So I guess we should figure out what we (the active community) think the > best solution would be, and > then work towards that. > > First of all, today we have > * www.owfs.org (where is that hosted, and where is the source?) > * https://sourceforge.net/projects/owfs/ with GIT, basic descriptions, > tickets, releases & mailinglist. > > There have been some suggestions for replacing the site so far, I'll try > to list some pros and cons, and personal thoughts. > > # Migrate all info to a Wiki > MediaWiki was brought up as an example, however requires > hosting/security etc. The same applies for most other dynamic-style wikis. > Sourceforge has some kind of wiki functionality as well (actually, we > seem to have it.. https://sourceforge.net/p/owfs/wiki/Home/). Downside > with SF wiki is that it is embedded into SF site. > > Pros: > - multiple contributors easy, no need to learn git/coding to contribute > - often WYSIWYG editor. > Possible cons: > - we might need to handle another access setup, possibly separated > from GIT access. Could however be a good thing, to not permit git access > but permit docs contribution. > - hosting? Good and flexible system? > > # Setup static docs > Statically generate docs (somewhere) and push them to static hosting. > For examples, generate from some source, using Sphix, jekyll or similar. > Hosting can be done for example on pages.github.com, readthedocs.org. Or > hosted third party somewhere. > > Pro: > - would be able to properly version it in git > - Could integrate with automatic build on push, using pull requests for > contribution etc. > - static is simple > Cons: > - Depending on how it's implemented, it could be trickier to contribute. > But most contributors are probably somewhat tech-savvy anyway.. > > --- > > I'm going to lift a followup question: should we stay on sourceforge? > Even if Github may be hyped and nowadays used by every granny and her > cat, it *is* a lot better than Sourceforge when it comes to git.. and > everything around it.. > We would certainly not be the first project to leave SF.. They may not > yet have covertly bundled installers and what not with owfs, but who > knows.. > (http://www.infoworld.com/article/2931753/open-source-software/sourceforge-the-end-cant-come-too-soon.html). > > I haven't looked at github pages much more than during writing message, > but something like this is tempting: > * Move project to github: git hosting, issue handling, pull requests. > * Setup new github pages, automatically built by pushing to either main > repo or a separate site repo. If we juse sphinx, jekyll, or plain > markdown, or something else, I don't know. > * Handle contributions to docs and source the same way: pull requests > > Github could thus handle: GIT, basic descriptions, issues, pull > requests, pages (site), releases. > However, not mailinglist. We could keep that at sourceforge though. > > (as it happens, I just created https://github.com/owfs. If we're not > going to use it, then at least so no-one else can steal it.. :)) > >> If we had to rewrite from scratch, that would be an awful lot of work. > That it would indeed.. But at the same time, we would need to go through > everything and clean out a lot of old/bad examples anyway. I'd say, > unless we're to keep the old site totally, we need to go through all > pages and move/filter the content. > > > Johan > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Owfs-developers mailing list > Owfs-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/owfs-developers > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Owfs-developers mailing list Owfs-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/owfs-developers
