Hi Mike, > Is there a reason I'm the only one that's done anything with the new > wiki? as always, I can speak only for myself - but I'm going to assume that I speak for at least a few of the developers who might look at the wiki at some point.
While the wiki might be a big help down the road, at least for me, the timing of SF opening it up to the projects participating in the beta, didn't work terribly well. I had a brief glance, which was enough for me to know that I didn't have enough time to really do anything with it. I guess the same might be true for others as well - just because SF decides to open up the wiki for everybody participating on some tuesday night, doesn't mean that everybody will just drop everything and have a look (and actually do something with it). Speaking for myself, I have a very busy week behind me, and a busy weekend ahead, so I will not be able to even take a closer look before next weekend (and who knows - things for the job that pays the bills might get crazy, in which case working on the "job" that doesn't pay the bills will be delayed further). To me, the wiki offers some potential, but it doesn't solve any short term problems the project has (i.e. lack of active developers). When I looked at the basic pages you (I assume it was you) created, I was wondering what exactly should go into the wiki - and what it was supposed to replace. Replacing the documents currently in doc-manager is fine - but to be honest, those are outrageously out of date, so simply migrating those would be a waste of time. Getting them up to date would be a good idea - but with everything else being in docbook format, it would seem more sensible to migrate those docs to docbook in our guides collection (unless you're considering we drop the whole docbook approach, since SF seems to make building the docs too difficult, and just go with the wiki - if that's the case, please say so, since then, working on keeping the docbook stuff updated would be time wasted). In short, it seemed to me that the wiki was a place for people to provide their own content (like the developer pages were a while back) - if that's the case, just give people some time to get used to the new system. If that's not what you had in mind, you should probably be more vocal about what you want the wiki to be. I have a chapter for the Bering uClibc users guide that still needs to be committed to CVS (regarding creating an access point that supports WPA2)- in your opinion, should I (or anybody else who wants to contribute to the docs) continue to use docbook, or should I/we drop that and port it to the wiki? To me, the wiki doesn't provide any additional benefit for now - as far as I know, everybody who has written docs so far has managed to get them published in our guides. If keeping things up to date, and getting more people to participate is what the wiki will give us, I'm all for it (and by the way, I totally agree with your decision to only give leaf developers access to the wiki - I've seen too many projects struggle with wiki-spam to make me want to consider opening up to everybody) - I'm just not sure what the general direction of the wiki should be at this point. As always, just speaking for myself, Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
