discuss: Linux documentation wiki
Subject:
Re: Linux documentation wiki
From:
Martin WHEELER ####@####.####
Date:
13 Jan 2002 17:46:26 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201131702350.5438-100000@caxton.startext.demon.co.uk>
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, David Merrill wrote:
> It would be a good idea for everyone who is involved in this
> discussion to try using Wikipedia or another wiki for awhile, so you
> get a feel for how it works in practice.
Hear, hear!
I couldn't agree with you more, David -- a big thank you for fielding a
lot of comments which would never have been expressed if the writer had
direct personal experience of using a wiki in the first place.
(And, BTW, that is _precisely_ why I set up
http://startext.demon.co.uk/distwiki/
-- so that potential writers could see a real live wiki in action;
visit; and experience editing a real live HOWTO. Albeit at one remove.)
I would recommend that all readers of these lists who haven't already
done so go look at the site; and experiment with editing the SandBox
at least -- or even add further useful information to the HOWTO itself.
That's what it's there for.
There is NO danger of the associated .sgml doc being corrupted -- it's a
totally separate document, and there is NO automatic bridge between one
and the other. (Deliberately, at this time.)
> The potentential is
> astounding for the LDP if we could capture even a small percentage of
> that dynamic.
Absolutely. The difference in time-to-update could be staggering.
NO-ONE is suggesting that *all* LDP documents should suddenly and
autocratically be edited this way -- only that we examine the
alternatives, and experiment to see if it suits a certain type of
document, and what the potential benefits and advantages might be.
To *everyone*. (Reader as well as writer.)
> There is no risk to our documents in cvs if nothing goes
> automatically into them.
Point made.
David -- would it be possible for you to start adding one more piece of
information to each document -- that is, whether the author[s] /
maintainer[s] were agreeable to it also being available in 'Quick Edit'
version?
As far as I'm concerned, I'm agreeable to this for *any* document I
produce for the LDP, so you can use that as a starting-point.
Then we can get on with the twin aims of finding a short-term means of
carrying out on-the-spot 'quick-edits'; whilst examining in more depth
longer-term possibilities for fully-integrated editing software.
[I want to play extensively with Churchill Rhumba.]
(Still haven't looked at your txt2db -- like others, I find using CVS a
royal PITA. I used to have a CVS account; but let it die through a
mixture of pure apathy and never being able to remember my password; how
to login, logout, checkin, checkout; or even find the damn' document in
which I wanted to correct a simple mis-punctuation of "it's".
Vivat wiki.)
Martin
--
Martin Wheeler ####@####.#### [gpg:1024D/01269BEB 2001-09-29]
/debian/ msw ####@####.#### [gpg:1024D/8D6B948B 2001-07-04]
