On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 6:10 PM Solomon Peachy via rockbox-dev < rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se> wrote:
> Do we care about having an interactive editor with changes going live > instantly, or can it be done via git commits with the live site > auto-updated as part of a commit hook? > > At the end of the day, the result is the same (revision-controlled > templated knowledgebase) with a roughly similar level of migration > effort (new template, migrating foswiki markup, server-side > infrastructure, etc etc..) > No, IMO they are not the same at all. Not to boast but I have contributed a lot lot wiki-like edits, articles, and posts. Probably way over 10,000. Usually if you are like me, you make the edit/fix/error you saw, hit submit, and then re-read it, being proud of your free contribution. And, exactly then, you find another thing to edit and fix. And so on --- until after a while you've written a real masterpiece. The instant you cannot get that live feedback and see a "your edit is awaiting approval" (or the equivalent awaiting an unknown amount of time for an auto-update) it's a no-go feeling like "That's the last time I ever help those aholes out." No masterpieces, only half-butted cruddy lame contributions with spelling errors etc. That's exactly what non-live editing is not asking but more begging for.
