Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-29 Thread Ian Clark
> documentation is like sex, because when it's good it's very good, and
even when it's bad it's a hell of a lot better than nothing.

Yes, but even bad sex can be improved. Even if it takes fifty bites of the
cherry.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Roger Stokes <
r...@rogerstokes.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

> Well said, Ian.
>
> There is an old joke: documentation is like sex, because when it's good
> it's very good, and even when it's bad it's a hell of a lot better than
> nothing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/29/2018 1:55 AM, Ian Clark wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, the current set of addons is in reasonably good shape, if not
>>>
>> always properly documented. Are you aware of specific issues with them?
>>
>> It's how they're documented that concerns me. But without even a "how to
>> proceed" message on loading – just nothing – the addon in question is by
>> definition not in good shape. If you're directed to someone's house you've
>> never visited, and the door's kicked in or nailed-up, do you expect to
>> find
>> the inside in reasonably good shape?
>>
>> Taking the side of a novice J-er, as usual, I'd have issues with over half
>> of them. If I go in along the recommended route:
>> http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
>> …I see a comprehensive listing of addons for which over half the links are
>> red (=missing). (58 red, 51 blue, 4 black.)
>> An even smaller proportion of addons have a lab. Failing which, is it too
>> much to ask for a working sample invocation of the chief verb for every
>> addon? If pacman showed this it would be miles more informative than the
>> airy description it usually offers.
>>
>> I've been trying recently to explore our addons library, to fill the gaps
>> in my knowledge and avoid reinventing the wheel. Without consistent
>> documentation of the most basic sort, the task that faces me is herculean.
>>
>> Now I'm not a novice user, and I have powerful tools, so nothing much
>> stops
>> me for long. So please don't offer to hold my hand in individual cases.
>> That misses the point.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM, chris burke 
>> wrote:
>>
>> AFAIK, the current set of addons is in reasonably good shape, if not
>>> always
>>> properly documented. Are you aware of specific issues with them?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Ian Clark 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It might be nice to have a way of marking addons as broken, either
>
 with a
>>>
 todo/fixme note or maybe just a documented way of deleting them?

 I think that's a splendid idea.

 Whenever I engage with an addon I've never used before, it takes me far

>>> too
>>>
 long to conclude that it's derelict. To stop our treasury of addons
 degenerating into a midden, I'd welcome an accepted *easy* way of

>>> alerting
>>>
 the owner – or fellow-users – to broken code (i.e. not a full-blown bug
 tracker).

 Am I the only one? Are we going to do something about it? Are we going
 to
 finish what we start?

 What's the best/most obvious alert mechanism? …the Talk page of the

>>> landing
>>>
 page for the Addon in question at code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
  ? This forum? Or

>>> something
>>>
 Github-based? (and hence over the vendor's horizon)?


 --
>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>>
>>> --
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>
>>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> --
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-29 Thread Ian Clark
I wish this forum had "Likes" like Facebook.

Because Henry's post would get a big red Heart from me.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Henry Rich  wrote:

> Last November I tried to start a project to document the Addons, and then
> I dropped the ball.  Raul contributed quite a bit as I recall.  I find that
> I am too busy with J Engine changes to take this project on.
>
> But we do need it.  We need some place where a user can see what functions
> are in the Addons so that they know what to download. After that, good docs
> for each Addon would be nice but surely those are the authors'
> responsibility.
>
> Python advocates point to the rich set of libraries as the main reason to
> use their language.  We should at least make the libraries we have easy to
> search for.  Anyone who takes on this project will be doing a great service
> to J, and it doesn't take a J maven to do it, just someone who can organize
> the information.
>
>
> I read Ian's post as saying he himself doesn't NEED the docs.  I expect he
> would have good ideas on how to present the material to those who do need
> it.  Certainly in NuVoc he has written as much novice-level documentation
> as anyone.
>
> Henry Rich
>
>
>
> On 4/28/2018 11:58 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Ian Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> Now I'm not a novice user, and I have powerful tools, so nothing much
>>> stops
>>> me for long. So please don't offer to hold my hand in individual cases.
>>> That misses the point.
>>>
>> The issue we need to solve is not so much declaring that we need
>> better documentation, but writing better documentation.
>>
>> And that process needs both an author and an audience.
>>
>> But it seems like you are declaring, here, that you are offering to be
>> neither?
>>
>> I might be a bit confused...
>>
>>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> --
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-29 Thread Ian Clark
> But it seems like you are declaring, here, that you are offering to be
neither?

I was sitting back waiting to be challenged on this very point. Because a
challenge to me will be a challenge to the rest of us.

I have not been altogether idle. But I have to face the fact that my best
work has always been cooperative work – and all the better when I'm not the
leader.

Apple must have upwards of a thousand documenters and "evangelists" – if
they still use the term. Jsoftware has a self-help group (this forum).

One more thing. IME the J engine is an ironclad made of titanium. From the
forums I see massive effort in making it even better. Yes, there's always
more honour in crewing a trim ship than a clapped-out hulk, and the Addons
library gives the impression of being the Cinderella of combined J effort.
But the non-J world will judge it by what it makes possible. If it weren't
for Unix/Linux and its vast library of invaluable apps (the Mac is almost
entirely built on them), who would give C/C++ the time of day? Ditto
Google/Raspberry Pi – and Python? The world-wide web – and Javascript?

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Roger Stokes <
r...@rogerstokes.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

> Well said, Ian.
>
> There is an old joke: documentation is like sex, because when it's good
> it's very good, and even when it's bad it's a hell of a lot better than
> nothing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/29/2018 1:55 AM, Ian Clark wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, the current set of addons is in reasonably good shape, if not
>>>
>> always properly documented. Are you aware of specific issues with them?
>>
>> It's how they're documented that concerns me. But without even a "how to
>> proceed" message on loading – just nothing – the addon in question is by
>> definition not in good shape. If you're directed to someone's house you've
>> never visited, and the door's kicked in or nailed-up, do you expect to
>> find
>> the inside in reasonably good shape?
>>
>> Taking the side of a novice J-er, as usual, I'd have issues with over half
>> of them. If I go in along the recommended route:
>> http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
>> …I see a comprehensive listing of addons for which over half the links are
>> red (=missing). (58 red, 51 blue, 4 black.)
>> An even smaller proportion of addons have a lab. Failing which, is it too
>> much to ask for a working sample invocation of the chief verb for every
>> addon? If pacman showed this it would be miles more informative than the
>> airy description it usually offers.
>>
>> I've been trying recently to explore our addons library, to fill the gaps
>> in my knowledge and avoid reinventing the wheel. Without consistent
>> documentation of the most basic sort, the task that faces me is herculean.
>>
>> Now I'm not a novice user, and I have powerful tools, so nothing much
>> stops
>> me for long. So please don't offer to hold my hand in individual cases.
>> That misses the point.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM, chris burke 
>> wrote:
>>
>> AFAIK, the current set of addons is in reasonably good shape, if not
>>> always
>>> properly documented. Are you aware of specific issues with them?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Ian Clark 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It might be nice to have a way of marking addons as broken, either
>
 with a
>>>
 todo/fixme note or maybe just a documented way of deleting them?

 I think that's a splendid idea.

 Whenever I engage with an addon I've never used before, it takes me far

>>> too
>>>
 long to conclude that it's derelict. To stop our treasury of addons
 degenerating into a midden, I'd welcome an accepted *easy* way of

>>> alerting
>>>
 the owner – or fellow-users – to broken code (i.e. not a full-blown bug
 tracker).

 Am I the only one? Are we going to do something about it? Are we going
 to
 finish what we start?

 What's the best/most obvious alert mechanism? …the Talk page of the

>>> landing
>>>
 page for the Addon in question at code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
  ? This forum? Or

>>> something
>>>
 Github-based? (and hence over the vendor's horizon)?


 --
>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>>
>>> --
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>
>>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> --
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-29 Thread Henry Rich
Last November I tried to start a project to document the Addons, and 
then I dropped the ball.  Raul contributed quite a bit as I recall.  I 
find that I am too busy with J Engine changes to take this project on.


But we do need it.  We need some place where a user can see what 
functions are in the Addons so that they know what to download. After 
that, good docs for each Addon would be nice but surely those are the 
authors' responsibility.


Python advocates point to the rich set of libraries as the main reason 
to use their language.  We should at least make the libraries we have 
easy to search for.  Anyone who takes on this project will be doing a 
great service to J, and it doesn't take a J maven to do it, just someone 
who can organize the information.



I read Ian's post as saying he himself doesn't NEED the docs.  I expect 
he would have good ideas on how to present the material to those who do 
need it.  Certainly in NuVoc he has written as much novice-level 
documentation as anyone.


Henry Rich



On 4/28/2018 11:58 PM, Raul Miller wrote:

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Ian Clark  wrote:

Now I'm not a novice user, and I have powerful tools, so nothing much stops
me for long. So please don't offer to hold my hand in individual cases.
That misses the point.

The issue we need to solve is not so much declaring that we need
better documentation, but writing better documentation.

And that process needs both an author and an audience.

But it seems like you are declaring, here, that you are offering to be neither?

I might be a bit confused...




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-29 Thread Roger Stokes

Well said, Ian.

There is an old joke: documentation is like sex, because when it's good
it's very good, and even when it's bad it's a hell of a lot better than 
nothing.






On 4/29/2018 1:55 AM, Ian Clark wrote:

AFAIK, the current set of addons is in reasonably good shape, if not

always properly documented. Are you aware of specific issues with them?

It's how they're documented that concerns me. But without even a "how to
proceed" message on loading – just nothing – the addon in question is by
definition not in good shape. If you're directed to someone's house you've
never visited, and the door's kicked in or nailed-up, do you expect to find
the inside in reasonably good shape?

Taking the side of a novice J-er, as usual, I'd have issues with over half
of them. If I go in along the recommended route:
http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
…I see a comprehensive listing of addons for which over half the links are
red (=missing). (58 red, 51 blue, 4 black.)
An even smaller proportion of addons have a lab. Failing which, is it too
much to ask for a working sample invocation of the chief verb for every
addon? If pacman showed this it would be miles more informative than the
airy description it usually offers.

I've been trying recently to explore our addons library, to fill the gaps
in my knowledge and avoid reinventing the wheel. Without consistent
documentation of the most basic sort, the task that faces me is herculean.

Now I'm not a novice user, and I have powerful tools, so nothing much stops
me for long. So please don't offer to hold my hand in individual cases.
That misses the point.



On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM, chris burke  wrote:


AFAIK, the current set of addons is in reasonably good shape, if not always
properly documented. Are you aware of specific issues with them?

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Ian Clark  wrote:


It might be nice to have a way of marking addons as broken, either

with a

todo/fixme note or maybe just a documented way of deleting them?

I think that's a splendid idea.

Whenever I engage with an addon I've never used before, it takes me far

too

long to conclude that it's derelict. To stop our treasury of addons
degenerating into a midden, I'd welcome an accepted *easy* way of

alerting

the owner – or fellow-users – to broken code (i.e. not a full-blown bug
tracker).

Am I the only one? Are we going to do something about it? Are we going to
finish what we start?

What's the best/most obvious alert mechanism? …the Talk page of the

landing

page for the Addon in question at code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
 ? This forum? Or

something

Github-based? (and hence over the vendor's horizon)?



--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm


--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-28 Thread Raul Miller
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Ian Clark  wrote:
> Now I'm not a novice user, and I have powerful tools, so nothing much stops
> me for long. So please don't offer to hold my hand in individual cases.
> That misses the point.

The issue we need to solve is not so much declaring that we need
better documentation, but writing better documentation.

And that process needs both an author and an audience.

But it seems like you are declaring, here, that you are offering to be neither?

I might be a bit confused...

-- 
Raul
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-28 Thread Ian Clark
> AFAIK, the current set of addons is in reasonably good shape, if not
always properly documented. Are you aware of specific issues with them?

It's how they're documented that concerns me. But without even a "how to
proceed" message on loading – just nothing – the addon in question is by
definition not in good shape. If you're directed to someone's house you've
never visited, and the door's kicked in or nailed-up, do you expect to find
the inside in reasonably good shape?

Taking the side of a novice J-er, as usual, I'd have issues with over half
of them. If I go in along the recommended route:
   http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
…I see a comprehensive listing of addons for which over half the links are
red (=missing). (58 red, 51 blue, 4 black.)
An even smaller proportion of addons have a lab. Failing which, is it too
much to ask for a working sample invocation of the chief verb for every
addon? If pacman showed this it would be miles more informative than the
airy description it usually offers.

I've been trying recently to explore our addons library, to fill the gaps
in my knowledge and avoid reinventing the wheel. Without consistent
documentation of the most basic sort, the task that faces me is herculean.

Now I'm not a novice user, and I have powerful tools, so nothing much stops
me for long. So please don't offer to hold my hand in individual cases.
That misses the point.



On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM, chris burke  wrote:

> AFAIK, the current set of addons is in reasonably good shape, if not always
> properly documented. Are you aware of specific issues with them?
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Ian Clark  wrote:
>
> > > It might be nice to have a way of marking addons as broken, either
> with a
> > todo/fixme note or maybe just a documented way of deleting them?
> >
> > I think that's a splendid idea.
> >
> > Whenever I engage with an addon I've never used before, it takes me far
> too
> > long to conclude that it's derelict. To stop our treasury of addons
> > degenerating into a midden, I'd welcome an accepted *easy* way of
> alerting
> > the owner – or fellow-users – to broken code (i.e. not a full-blown bug
> > tracker).
> >
> > Am I the only one? Are we going to do something about it? Are we going to
> > finish what we start?
> >
> > What's the best/most obvious alert mechanism? …the Talk page of the
> landing
> > page for the Addon in question at code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
> >  ? This forum? Or
> something
> > Github-based? (and hence over the vendor's horizon)?
> >
> >
> --
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-28 Thread chris burke
One thing still to do is a page that lists all J-related github repos. This
would include not just the current set of addons, but any repos of interest
to the community.

The usual starting page name for this is jsoftware.github.com, which can be
in any format. Right now it just redirects to a J wiki page with the
jsoftware repos. It would be nice to have a more attractive format that
made for easier navigation and was readily extensible to any other repos.

Any suggestions or help on this would be appreciated.
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-28 Thread chris burke
I don't see any problem in an addon being documented in github. It is nice
to have all addons referenced somewhere in the wiki, but the reference can
just be a redirect to a github page.


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Ian Clark  wrote:

> > So I would not be too quick to toss out the old.
>
> I've invested a lot of my time in jwiki in the past, so I ought to be the
> last to do that.
>
> Maybe I was being provocative – or just alarmed?
>
> In topics where I'm a beginner, I do appreciate one-stop shops. Multiple
> competing sources for goods and services do make me wonder if that's not a
> sign that none of them are up to the job. So… from my experience of Github
> I wonder if it would inevitably displace jwiki – at least for those addons
> that matter. Should we be glad – or dismayed?
>
> If the "addon corpus" on jwiki (=JAL?) were in a good state and therefore
> unassailable, I for one would not be "glad".
>
>
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-28 Thread chris burke
AFAIK, the current set of addons is in reasonably good shape, if not always
properly documented. Are you aware of specific issues with them?

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Ian Clark  wrote:

> > It might be nice to have a way of marking addons as broken, either with a
> todo/fixme note or maybe just a documented way of deleting them?
>
> I think that's a splendid idea.
>
> Whenever I engage with an addon I've never used before, it takes me far too
> long to conclude that it's derelict. To stop our treasury of addons
> degenerating into a midden, I'd welcome an accepted *easy* way of alerting
> the owner – or fellow-users – to broken code (i.e. not a full-blown bug
> tracker).
>
> Am I the only one? Are we going to do something about it? Are we going to
> finish what we start?
>
> What's the best/most obvious alert mechanism? …the Talk page of the landing
> page for the Addon in question at code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
>  ? This forum? Or something
> Github-based? (and hence over the vendor's horizon)?
>
>
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-26 Thread Ian Clark
> So I would not be too quick to toss out the old.

I've invested a lot of my time in jwiki in the past, so I ought to be the
last to do that.

Maybe I was being provocative – or just alarmed?

In topics where I'm a beginner, I do appreciate one-stop shops. Multiple
competing sources for goods and services do make me wonder if that's not a
sign that none of them are up to the job. So… from my experience of Github
I wonder if it would inevitably displace jwiki – at least for those addons
that matter. Should we be glad – or dismayed?

If the "addon corpus" on jwiki (=JAL?) were in a good state and therefore
unassailable, I for one would not be "glad".

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Raul Miller  wrote:

> For what it's worth, it's true that every github repository comes with
> a [potential] wiki:
>
> https://help.github.com/articles/about-github-wikis/
> https://guides.github.com/features/wikis/
> https://help.github.com/categories/wiki/
>
> That said, there's no "innate" reason to not use the code.jsoftware.com
> wiki.
>
> But the real issues are not where the pages are hosted, but authorship
> and maintenance. Wiki hosting is more like rearranging the deck
> chairs, in comparison.
>
> (Also, search engines and blogs adjust to changed urls at a glacial
> pace and books adjust even more slowly... So I would not be too quick
> to toss out the old.)
>
> --
> Raul
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Ian Clark  wrote:
> > Yes @Alex, that's the idea I get about it. But I've not used Github at
> more
> > than a superficial level, so I don't know how it pans out in practice.
> I've
> > used plenty of source-control / cooperative-working software in my time,
> > trac, svn plus various company homebrews. But they all belong to a bygone
> > age set against Github's effortless competence. No wonder it's so
> popular.
> >
> > From what I've seen of others' use of it, the greater part of an addon's
> > documentation, including promotional material, banners, shop-windows,
> could
> > be handled by GitHub with greater felicity than the use we're making of
> > jwiki. Once proven in use, maybe we could abandon jwiki in favour of it –
> > at least as far as addons are concerned? I've seen whole beginners'
> courses
> > (e.g. for Swift, Apple's new Objective-C replacement) delivered on
> Github.
> > I've even used it myself to cooperatively write and publish a reference
> > manual for a minority-interest product.
> >
> > It also seems more trustworthy as regards malware payloads, versus, say,
> > SourceForge. Is that other's experience? Or am I kidding myself? If it's
> > really so then I'm not sure why. Maybe it boils down to a clientele
> mostly
> > prepared to RTFC.
> >
> > Ian Clark
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Alex Shroyer 
> wrote:
> >
> >> GitHub's Issues interface is good for both alerting a project's
> >> maintainers, and also for users to get a sense how actively it's being
> >> maintained.
> >>
> >> GitHub has decent mechanisms for transferring ownership of
> repositories, so
> >> questionable/abandoned addons could go somewhere out of the way (but
> still
> >> publicly available, to encourage fixing) until someone wants to take
> >> ownership.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Ian Clark 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > It might be nice to have a way of marking addons as broken, either
> >> with a
> >> > todo/fixme note or maybe just a documented way of deleting them?
> >> >
> >> > I think that's a splendid idea.
> >> >
> >> > Whenever I engage with an addon I've never used before, it takes me
> far
> >> too
> >> > long to conclude that it's derelict. To stop our treasury of addons
> >> > degenerating into a midden, I'd welcome an accepted *easy* way of
> >> alerting
> >> > the owner – or fellow-users – to broken code (i.e. not a full-blown
> bug
> >> > tracker).
> >> >
> >> > Am I the only one? Are we going to do something about it? Are we
> going to
> >> > finish what we start?
> >> >
> >> > What's the best/most obvious alert mechanism? …the Talk page of the
> >> landing
> >> > page for the Addon in question at code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
> >> >  ? This forum? Or
> >> something
> >> > Github-based? (and hence over the vendor's horizon)?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Raul Miller 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > This looks like a good idea.
> >> > >
> >> > > The one suggestion I would have is that this makes it easy to
> install
> >> > > broken stuff. Of course, we have already had breakages with system
> >> > > upgrades - interface changes or removed dependencies can show up as
> >> > > addons not working right. It might be nice to have a way of marking
> >> > > addons as broken, either with a todo/fixme note or maybe just a
> >> > > documented way of deleting them?
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> 

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-26 Thread Raul Miller
For what it's worth, it's true that every github repository comes with
a [potential] wiki:

https://help.github.com/articles/about-github-wikis/
https://guides.github.com/features/wikis/
https://help.github.com/categories/wiki/

That said, there's no "innate" reason to not use the code.jsoftware.com wiki.

But the real issues are not where the pages are hosted, but authorship
and maintenance. Wiki hosting is more like rearranging the deck
chairs, in comparison.

(Also, search engines and blogs adjust to changed urls at a glacial
pace and books adjust even more slowly... So I would not be too quick
to toss out the old.)

-- 
Raul


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Ian Clark  wrote:
> Yes @Alex, that's the idea I get about it. But I've not used Github at more
> than a superficial level, so I don't know how it pans out in practice. I've
> used plenty of source-control / cooperative-working software in my time,
> trac, svn plus various company homebrews. But they all belong to a bygone
> age set against Github's effortless competence. No wonder it's so popular.
>
> From what I've seen of others' use of it, the greater part of an addon's
> documentation, including promotional material, banners, shop-windows, could
> be handled by GitHub with greater felicity than the use we're making of
> jwiki. Once proven in use, maybe we could abandon jwiki in favour of it –
> at least as far as addons are concerned? I've seen whole beginners' courses
> (e.g. for Swift, Apple's new Objective-C replacement) delivered on Github.
> I've even used it myself to cooperatively write and publish a reference
> manual for a minority-interest product.
>
> It also seems more trustworthy as regards malware payloads, versus, say,
> SourceForge. Is that other's experience? Or am I kidding myself? If it's
> really so then I'm not sure why. Maybe it boils down to a clientele mostly
> prepared to RTFC.
>
> Ian Clark
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Alex Shroyer  wrote:
>
>> GitHub's Issues interface is good for both alerting a project's
>> maintainers, and also for users to get a sense how actively it's being
>> maintained.
>>
>> GitHub has decent mechanisms for transferring ownership of repositories, so
>> questionable/abandoned addons could go somewhere out of the way (but still
>> publicly available, to encourage fixing) until someone wants to take
>> ownership.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Ian Clark  wrote:
>>
>> > > It might be nice to have a way of marking addons as broken, either
>> with a
>> > todo/fixme note or maybe just a documented way of deleting them?
>> >
>> > I think that's a splendid idea.
>> >
>> > Whenever I engage with an addon I've never used before, it takes me far
>> too
>> > long to conclude that it's derelict. To stop our treasury of addons
>> > degenerating into a midden, I'd welcome an accepted *easy* way of
>> alerting
>> > the owner – or fellow-users – to broken code (i.e. not a full-blown bug
>> > tracker).
>> >
>> > Am I the only one? Are we going to do something about it? Are we going to
>> > finish what we start?
>> >
>> > What's the best/most obvious alert mechanism? …the Talk page of the
>> landing
>> > page for the Addon in question at code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
>> >  ? This forum? Or
>> something
>> > Github-based? (and hence over the vendor's horizon)?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Raul Miller 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > This looks like a good idea.
>> > >
>> > > The one suggestion I would have is that this makes it easy to install
>> > > broken stuff. Of course, we have already had breakages with system
>> > > upgrades - interface changes or removed dependencies can show up as
>> > > addons not working right. It might be nice to have a way of marking
>> > > addons as broken, either with a todo/fixme note or maybe just a
>> > > documented way of deleting them?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Raul
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:49 PM, chris burke 
>> > wrote:
>> > > > (This is cross posted to general and programming - please send any
>> > > comments
>> > > > to general.)
>> > > >
>> > > > We plan to move the addons source from SVN to github, and at the same
>> > > time
>> > > > support installs from personal github repos outside the main addons
>> > > source.
>> > > > See code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons/GitHub .
>> > > >
>> > > > We have this working now, but would appreciate comments before going
>> > > ahead,
>> > > > thanks.
>> > > > 
>> --
>> > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/
>> forums.htm
>> > > --
>> > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>> > >
>> > 

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-26 Thread Ian Clark
Yes @Alex, that's the idea I get about it. But I've not used Github at more
than a superficial level, so I don't know how it pans out in practice. I've
used plenty of source-control / cooperative-working software in my time,
trac, svn plus various company homebrews. But they all belong to a bygone
age set against Github's effortless competence. No wonder it's so popular.

From what I've seen of others' use of it, the greater part of an addon's
documentation, including promotional material, banners, shop-windows, could
be handled by GitHub with greater felicity than the use we're making of
jwiki. Once proven in use, maybe we could abandon jwiki in favour of it –
at least as far as addons are concerned? I've seen whole beginners' courses
(e.g. for Swift, Apple's new Objective-C replacement) delivered on Github.
I've even used it myself to cooperatively write and publish a reference
manual for a minority-interest product.

It also seems more trustworthy as regards malware payloads, versus, say,
SourceForge. Is that other's experience? Or am I kidding myself? If it's
really so then I'm not sure why. Maybe it boils down to a clientele mostly
prepared to RTFC.

Ian Clark

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Alex Shroyer  wrote:

> GitHub's Issues interface is good for both alerting a project's
> maintainers, and also for users to get a sense how actively it's being
> maintained.
>
> GitHub has decent mechanisms for transferring ownership of repositories, so
> questionable/abandoned addons could go somewhere out of the way (but still
> publicly available, to encourage fixing) until someone wants to take
> ownership.
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Ian Clark  wrote:
>
> > > It might be nice to have a way of marking addons as broken, either
> with a
> > todo/fixme note or maybe just a documented way of deleting them?
> >
> > I think that's a splendid idea.
> >
> > Whenever I engage with an addon I've never used before, it takes me far
> too
> > long to conclude that it's derelict. To stop our treasury of addons
> > degenerating into a midden, I'd welcome an accepted *easy* way of
> alerting
> > the owner – or fellow-users – to broken code (i.e. not a full-blown bug
> > tracker).
> >
> > Am I the only one? Are we going to do something about it? Are we going to
> > finish what we start?
> >
> > What's the best/most obvious alert mechanism? …the Talk page of the
> landing
> > page for the Addon in question at code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
> >  ? This forum? Or
> something
> > Github-based? (and hence over the vendor's horizon)?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Raul Miller 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This looks like a good idea.
> > >
> > > The one suggestion I would have is that this makes it easy to install
> > > broken stuff. Of course, we have already had breakages with system
> > > upgrades - interface changes or removed dependencies can show up as
> > > addons not working right. It might be nice to have a way of marking
> > > addons as broken, either with a todo/fixme note or maybe just a
> > > documented way of deleting them?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Raul
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:49 PM, chris burke 
> > wrote:
> > > > (This is cross posted to general and programming - please send any
> > > comments
> > > > to general.)
> > > >
> > > > We plan to move the addons source from SVN to github, and at the same
> > > time
> > > > support installs from personal github repos outside the main addons
> > > source.
> > > > See code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons/GitHub .
> > > >
> > > > We have this working now, but would appreciate comments before going
> > > ahead,
> > > > thanks.
> > > > 
> --
> > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/
> forums.htm
> > > --
> > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> > >
> > --
> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> >
> --
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-26 Thread Alex Shroyer
GitHub's Issues interface is good for both alerting a project's
maintainers, and also for users to get a sense how actively it's being
maintained.

GitHub has decent mechanisms for transferring ownership of repositories, so
questionable/abandoned addons could go somewhere out of the way (but still
publicly available, to encourage fixing) until someone wants to take
ownership.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Ian Clark  wrote:

> > It might be nice to have a way of marking addons as broken, either with a
> todo/fixme note or maybe just a documented way of deleting them?
>
> I think that's a splendid idea.
>
> Whenever I engage with an addon I've never used before, it takes me far too
> long to conclude that it's derelict. To stop our treasury of addons
> degenerating into a midden, I'd welcome an accepted *easy* way of alerting
> the owner – or fellow-users – to broken code (i.e. not a full-blown bug
> tracker).
>
> Am I the only one? Are we going to do something about it? Are we going to
> finish what we start?
>
> What's the best/most obvious alert mechanism? …the Talk page of the landing
> page for the Addon in question at code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
>  ? This forum? Or something
> Github-based? (and hence over the vendor's horizon)?
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Raul Miller 
> wrote:
>
> > This looks like a good idea.
> >
> > The one suggestion I would have is that this makes it easy to install
> > broken stuff. Of course, we have already had breakages with system
> > upgrades - interface changes or removed dependencies can show up as
> > addons not working right. It might be nice to have a way of marking
> > addons as broken, either with a todo/fixme note or maybe just a
> > documented way of deleting them?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Raul
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:49 PM, chris burke 
> wrote:
> > > (This is cross posted to general and programming - please send any
> > comments
> > > to general.)
> > >
> > > We plan to move the addons source from SVN to github, and at the same
> > time
> > > support installs from personal github repos outside the main addons
> > source.
> > > See code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons/GitHub .
> > >
> > > We have this working now, but would appreciate comments before going
> > ahead,
> > > thanks.
> > > --
> > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> > --
> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> >
> --
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-25 Thread Ian Clark
> It might be nice to have a way of marking addons as broken, either with a
todo/fixme note or maybe just a documented way of deleting them?

I think that's a splendid idea.

Whenever I engage with an addon I've never used before, it takes me far too
long to conclude that it's derelict. To stop our treasury of addons
degenerating into a midden, I'd welcome an accepted *easy* way of alerting
the owner – or fellow-users – to broken code (i.e. not a full-blown bug
tracker).

Am I the only one? Are we going to do something about it? Are we going to
finish what we start?

What's the best/most obvious alert mechanism? …the Talk page of the landing
page for the Addon in question at code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons
 ? This forum? Or something
Github-based? (and hence over the vendor's horizon)?


On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Raul Miller  wrote:

> This looks like a good idea.
>
> The one suggestion I would have is that this makes it easy to install
> broken stuff. Of course, we have already had breakages with system
> upgrades - interface changes or removed dependencies can show up as
> addons not working right. It might be nice to have a way of marking
> addons as broken, either with a todo/fixme note or maybe just a
> documented way of deleting them?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:49 PM, chris burke  wrote:
> > (This is cross posted to general and programming - please send any
> comments
> > to general.)
> >
> > We plan to move the addons source from SVN to github, and at the same
> time
> > support installs from personal github repos outside the main addons
> source.
> > See code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons/GitHub .
> >
> > We have this working now, but would appreciate comments before going
> ahead,
> > thanks.
> > --
> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> --
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-11 Thread chris burke
The official addons should have the same reliability as now. We did have
problems in the past when moving from J6 to J7/J8, but those seem to be
ironed out now.

We won't have the same control over private repos, and this may be a
concern. I think we should just monitor the situation to start off with.
Later on we could keep a list of what works and what doesn't.


On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Raul Miller  wrote:

> This looks like a good idea.
>
> The one suggestion I would have is that this makes it easy to install
> broken stuff. Of course, we have already had breakages with system
> upgrades - interface changes or removed dependencies can show up as
> addons not working right. It might be nice to have a way of marking
> addons as broken, either with a todo/fixme note or maybe just a
> documented way of deleting them?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:49 PM, chris burke  wrote:
> > (This is cross posted to general and programming - please send any
> comments
> > to general.)
> >
> > We plan to move the addons source from SVN to github, and at the same
> time
> > support installs from personal github repos outside the main addons
> source.
> > See code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons/GitHub .
> >
> > We have this working now, but would appreciate comments before going
> ahead,
> > thanks.
> > --
> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> --
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-11 Thread Brian Schott
Is github as widely available as the current links?
I ask because I believe I occasionally am warned that my browser or OS is
not up to date.


-- 
(B=) <-my sig
Brian Schott
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Re: [Jgeneral] [Jprogramming] github-based addons

2018-04-11 Thread Raul Miller
This looks like a good idea.

The one suggestion I would have is that this makes it easy to install
broken stuff. Of course, we have already had breakages with system
upgrades - interface changes or removed dependencies can show up as
addons not working right. It might be nice to have a way of marking
addons as broken, either with a todo/fixme note or maybe just a
documented way of deleting them?

Thanks,

-- 
Raul


On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:49 PM, chris burke  wrote:
> (This is cross posted to general and programming - please send any comments
> to general.)
>
> We plan to move the addons source from SVN to github, and at the same time
> support installs from personal github repos outside the main addons source.
> See code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Addons/GitHub .
>
> We have this working now, but would appreciate comments before going ahead,
> thanks.
> --
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm