On 03.12.2013 21:57, Manuel Nickschas wrote: > On Monday 25 November 2013 20:30:46 Bas Pape wrote: >> The reason I recommended to ditch the wiki is because it's an >> exceptionally freeform medium and everything added goes into >> "production" immediately. This would mean that in order to ensure >> quality, the wiki would have to be monitored actively. >> On IRC it was suggested a centralized effort could be done using a wiki >> too, but this would mostly mean just laying down some guides to denote >> areas that need work and perhaps limit scope to some extent. I highly >> doubt that such an approach would get things done and maintain >> consistency. Next to that, it would complicate getting plaintext docs >> and formatted docs for offline use (i.e. in the package). > > So, yes. If we keep the docs inside the repo, we can apply the usual review > process to ensure that they're high quality. And it would probably much > easier > to find trusted and capable reviewers for that part of the repo than it is > for > the actual code. That leaves the question of which format would be suitable...
I like how docker integrated the documentation¹, note the edit link on the bottom right. Maybe we could even steal^wfork their whole web page²? [1] http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/ [2] https://github.com/dotcloud/www.docker.io _______________________________________________ quassel-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.quassel-irc.org/mailman/listinfo/quassel-users
