On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Rahul Upakare <rah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it is a control vs. simplicity paradox. If we want a user interface > which anybody knows how to use, it has to be simple like wiki. Anyone can > contribute/update/edit/produce/maintain the content. There is no need for > a > separate maintainer for content. > > On the other hand, the github pages approach is not for everyone. It may be > simple for sophisticated/power users, but definitely not straight forward > for everyone. IMHO, sending, approving, and merging PR requests is to much > to ask for if change is very small (like, sentence/spelling correction or > small additions). > > In short, if priority is to have few people control/approve the website > content, then github pages is no doubt a good option, but if we want > everyone/anyone to contribute, would suggest to go for some simpler > options. > That was not my intention. Sorry if it came across as that. What I was alluding to was that maintaining a dynamic site is time-consuming. In case of a wiki, applying security updates and moderating the wiki for spam is a time sink. I say this because we did have a MediaWiki install at one point, with a steady inflow of spam. OTOH, maintaining a static website via GitHub is much easier than what you suggest. For a project member, it takes just 2 clicks to edit a file and commit, right from the browser, without leaving github.com. Anurag -- http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
