On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Gábor Fási <m...@maerlyn.eu> wrote: > >> On 27 July 2012 13:15, Laupretre François >> <francois.laupre...@francetv.fr> wrote: >> >> How about using git for the actual documents too.. No better way to >> >> collaborate imho. >> > >> > Do you mean using github or integrating git VCS in a RFC app ? If you >> mean using github, it is a convenient way to store document evolution and >> comments, but what about the voting process, let alone RFC numbering and >> status mgmt ? I don't know github enough, is it possible to add such >> plugins/features on it ? >> >> The first that came to my mind reading that is a github feature called >> Pages[1]. In essence these are static sites hosted on github's >> servers, optionally reachable via your own domain. >> >> Though they are static, github supports dynamic content via a tool >> called Jekyll. This probably means that after the initial setup one >> can easily add a new rfc, change it's status, etc. with all related >> pages updating automatically. I played around a bit with jekyll, but >> stopped at simple, blog-like functionality. >> >> Being hosted on github this probably means we can use the currect >> authentication mechanism (checking for rfc/wiki karma) for this as >> well. >> >> [1]: https://help.github.com/categories/20/articles >> [2]: https://github.com/mojombo/jekyll/wiki >> >> > > sorry for the interruption, but I think we are losing the focus here. > to rewind the stack a little bit: > somebody mentions, that it is a little bit PITA, that we have to manually > manage the rfc index page, it is easy to forget to link your rfc there, or > to forget to edit that page when your rfc status changes. > > I agree that this can be a problem, I agree that we should put some effort > fixing it, but > > - I don't think that we need to replace the current wiki with a homebrew > rfc application just for fixing that issue > - I don't think that we need to start using a cms (and implementing the > custom auth, wiki, and voting functionality) for fixing that issue. > - I can't see how would replacing our php based wiki for a semi-static > blog/site generator fix our original issue, and even if it would, how would > we proceed with the voting? > - Currently writing an rfc and voting is simple enough, you can do it > from your browser. I'm not sure that we could keep that way if we would > switch to jekyll (how would voting work? pushing a line addition > to the rfc > itself?) > > If somebody really interested, there are plugins for dokuwiki for > advanced/automatic listing pages from a given namespace, and it is possible > to store meta information for the wiki pages, where we could store all of > the rfc infos like status, author, etc. and we could put together a > plugin/patch for using that meta information for rendering the rfc > startpage. > > -- > Ferenc Kovács > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
I agree completely. This is the right way to go, in my opinion (using the plugins for dokuwiki). Creating a new system is only bound to introduce new problems even if it does solve the existing ones. Not to mention the existing problem is rather simple and limited in scope given that the number of people currently proposing RFCs and with access to that part of the wiki aren't huge or unmanageable right now. Lets focus on effective solutions without introducing more potential for error. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
