Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Sorry it took me so long to respond to this Sebastian. On Thu, May 10, 2007 11:57 am, Sebastian Menge wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 10.05.2007, 10:44 -0500 schrieb Tom Purl: ... The proposal was not about the layout directly but about separating formatting from content! So feel free to change the formatting of the Template, but with this approach noone has ever to edit the tips directly to change the design ... Please dont mix content and markup at import time! Ohhh..., ok. Sorry for being so dense about this in the past. So your proposal is that we use Mediawiki template to do the actual formatting, and put the actual content into some sort of macro/function. From a conversion and sysadmin point of view, this is a great idea in my opinion. The problem is that it adds another barrier to entry for potential tip authors in my opinion. We are assuming that the tip authors have or are willing to gain an intermediate knowledge of Mediawiki authoring, just so they can post a tip. In my opinion, this is probably a bad idea. This will keep people from posting tips, and will make it more difficult to edit tips. I'd love to hear other opinions of course. ... Lets just go ahead on the Wikia. I think it's a great option, and am anxious to see which wiki works best for us. Thanks again! Tom Purl
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Tom Purl wrote: Here's what I propose we do: 1. Finalize a tip formatting standard. 2. Use the best available script that supports this standard. 3. Update the best available script if necessary. 4. Revise the standard if necessary. 5. Convert a tips sample. 6. Review the sample and revise the script if necessary. Good. But to keep our discussion focussed, please do what you did last time: Put a sample tip on a wiki page so we can agree on its features. Please take Gene's advice and manually edit the page to how you think it should look. Once the format is agreed, we can ask for a script. I recommend: - Propose a format for the URL of each tip, as well as the format of the page. - Omit the info box with author, date, tip rating, Vim version. It's too hard to maintain, and too intrusive. - Keep the comments on the tip page, with a very simple comment heading in front of each, something like: -By UserName on March 8, 2001 14:51- To make it easy to edit the page, the comment heading should be a single line in the wiki source. -Or- Put all the comments on the talk page, with the format as above. However, that seems unnecessarily tricky to do in practice (it doubles the number of pages we have to work with). I favour putting the comments in the main page to make it easier to clean up the tip. When we see a tip with old-style comments, we would know that it needed an overhaul. 1. Let's use this mailing list to coordinate the project. All comments regarding wiki page format, however, should be written to the talk section of the affected wiki page. Please be more explicit. Will we use the vim or the vim-dev list? How can we comment on the wiki page format on the talk section? I think we should use the vim mailing list for all discussions until a decision (your decision!) is made to finalise the wiki site, format, and script. Final suggestion: Please start a new thread (new subject) which we will follow until everything is finalised, rather than replying to this. It would be great if you would consider what I and others have written, then make a proposal with what you think. John
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On Thu, May 10, 2007 3:40 am, John Beckett wrote: Tom Purl wrote: Here's what I propose we do: 1. Finalize a tip formatting standard. 2. Use the best available script that supports this standard. 3. Update the best available script if necessary. 4. Revise the standard if necessary. 5. Convert a tips sample. 6. Review the sample and revise the script if necessary. Good. But to keep our discussion focussed, please do what you did last time: Put a sample tip on a wiki page so we can agree on its features. We already have a tip on the page that people have been working on. You can see the link to it on the following page: * http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_the_vi_editor/Vim/TipsSandbox Please take Gene's advice and manually edit the page to how you think it should look. Once the format is agreed, we can ask for a script. I recommend: - Propose a format for the URL of each tip, as well as the format of the page. - Omit the info box with author, date, tip rating, Vim version. It's too hard to maintain, and too intrusive. - Keep the comments on the tip page, with a very simple comment heading in front of each, something like: -By UserName on March 8, 2001 14:51- To make it easy to edit the page, the comment heading should be a single line in the wiki source. I agree that we should keep things as simple as possible, at least for the initial conversion. After that, when all updates are manual, we can be more fancy :) This not only saves time, but I just don't think that it is possible to create a conversion script that can convert plain text that doesn't use a single markup style to a consistent format. -Or- Put all the comments on the talk page, with the format as above. However, that seems unnecessarily tricky to do in practice (it doubles the number of pages we have to work with). I favour putting the comments in the main page to make it easier to clean up the tip. When we see a tip with old-style comments, we would know that it needed an overhaul. So do I. 1. Let's use this mailing list to coordinate the project. All comments regarding wiki page format, however, should be written to the talk section of the affected wiki page. Please be more explicit. Will we use the vim or the vim-dev list? I was referring to the user mailing list. How can we comment on the wiki page format on the talk section? Each page has a talk tab, and you can use it to comment on a wiki page. I think we should use the vim mailing list for all discussions until a decision (your decision!) is made to finalise the wiki site, format, and script. Ok, what does everyone else think? I'm open to this, especially since it's easier to keep up with the mailing list than it is to keep up with a Wikibooks watchlist page. Final suggestion: Please start a new thread (new subject) which we will follow until everything is finalised, rather than replying to this. I agree. I'm a big fan of proper mailing list thread etiquette, even though I completely ignored it for this discussion :) I plan on starting a new thread for each deadline, and I think we should be fairly granular when it comes to thread creation. It makes things easier to follow. If in doubt, create a new thread! It would be great if you would consider what I and others have written, then make a proposal with what you think. Thanks for the feedback! My proposal is basically what I said yesterday - that we follow some sort of schedule and make some decisions. I like your suggestions. What does everyone else think? Tom Purl
RE: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On Thu, May 10, 2007 10:52 am, Zdenek Sekera wrote: It would be great if you would consider what I and others have written, then make a proposal with what you think. Thanks for the feedback! My proposal is basically what I said yesterday - that we follow some sort of schedule and make some decisions. I like your suggestions. What does everyone else think? Sounds very good, go for it as per Gene's suggestion. Nothing will get done otherwise, unless somebody knowledgable really starts. Good luck! For the record, a couple of very knowledgeable people have already done most of the hard work. For examples, we have a collection of conversion scripts already: * http://vimtips.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/scripts/ The only part that really remains is the part that requires some sort of consensus, albeit small. So yes, a lot of work by very talented people has been done already. The remaining work is actually pretty small; it just requires a small amount of agreement. Also, I really don't think that this project suffers from bureaucratic overkill or the lack of talented individuals who can do a lot of great work in a very short amount of time. The reason why everything's been moving so slowly so far is due to a lack of organization in my opinion. I'll try and do my part, and if a few other people can pitch in a few minutes every couple of days or so, I think we'll be done soon. Thanks! Tom Purl
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Am Donnerstag, den 10.05.2007, 10:44 -0500 schrieb Tom Purl: did last time: Put a sample tip on a wiki page so we can agree on its features. We already have a tip on the page that people have been working on. You can see the link to it on the following page: * http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_the_vi_editor/Vim/TipsSandbox And we have http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VimTest http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Tip The proposal was not about the layout directly but about separating formatting from content! So feel free to change the formatting of the Template, but with this approach noone has ever to edit the tips directly to change the design ... Please dont mix content and markup at import time! As for scripting: There is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Bulk_Page_Creator and http://hawking.nonlogic.org/stuff/python/vimtips.py The adaption and combination of both resulted in: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VimTip1 http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VimTip2 http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VimTip3 http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VimTip4 http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VimTip5 All use the Template:Tip (15 Minutes of work ...) But i guess there are better scripts to parse the tips. Perhaps someone could even setup a php-script directly on vim.org that produces the right markup (without parsing the html of tips.php ...) Thanks for the feedback! My proposal is basically what I said yesterday - that we follow some sort of schedule and make some decisions. I like your suggestions. What does everyone else think? Lets just go ahead on the Wikia. Sebastian.
RE: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Am Donnerstag, den 10.05.2007, 11:40 -0500 schrieb Tom Purl: For the record, a couple of very knowledgeable people have already done most of the hard work. For examples, we have a collection of conversion scripts already: * http://vimtips.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/scripts/ Doh! -- Seb.
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Am Mittwoch 09 Mai 2007 schrieb Gene Kwiecinski: Now, I have zero idea just how much work is involved in making a wiki, but if it's enough for one person to do... hey, have at it. Otherwise, if you end up waiting for a consensus as to which wiki software to use, which site to use, /ad nauseam/, it's likely not going to get done. All we need is one of the administrators of any sourceforge vim project to activate the Wiki and set write level access level to all registered sourceforce users - done. That's the beauty of the sourceforge wiki: no setup needed at all the get started. Martin -- Martin Krischik mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Am Donnerstag 10 Mai 2007 schrieb Tom Purl: We already have a tip on the page that people have been working on. You can see the link to it on the following page: * http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_the_vi_editor/Vim/TipsSandbox Quite nice and I was quite disappointed when it did not continue. But have a look at the Talk/Discussion pages (which each normal page has attached) as well. Martin -- Martin Krischik mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On Tue, May 8, 2007 3:32 pm, Bram Moolenaar wrote: The main goal now is to get the Vim tips collection back to live. It has been dead for three months now! I wasn't aware of this, and it's definitely a problem. Here's what I propose we do: 1. Finalize a tip formatting standard. 2. Use the best available script that supports this standard. 3. Update the best available script if necessary. 4. Revise the standard if necessary. 5. Convert a tips sample. 6. Review the sample and revise the script if necessary. Once we're done with all of that, we can revisit the question of which wiki we'll use and then convert all of the tips. Since this project is lagging, let's also use the following standards: 1. Let's use this mailing list to coordinate the project. All comments regarding wiki page format, however, should be written to the talk section of the affected wiki page. If you're unsure as to where to post your comment, then just post it to this mailing list. 2. Let's set a deadline for signing off of the wiki formatting standard of 5/21. 2. Let's set a deadline for determining the best conversion script of standard of 6/4. This is just a start, and I'm open to all opinions/criticism. I just want to give this project a shot in the arm so that we can resurrect one of the best features of the Vim editor. What do yo guys think? Perhaps we can figure out some clever way to also make the help files available with links between the tips and the help files. Thus in the help file you would see some link that takes you to a tip associated with the text at that position. But without that the tips are still very useful. -- From know your smileys: O:-) Saint /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ ///sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org /// \\\help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Am Mittwoch, den 09.05.2007, 10:33 -0500 schrieb Tom Purl: I wasn't aware of this, and it's definitely a problem. Here's what I propose we do: First, im not sure about what you mean by a) formatting standard and b) a script that supports the standard is a) something like a template in mediawiki-speak? see: http://home.comcast.net/~gerisch/MediaWikiTemplates.html http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates is b) something that reads the tips-db on vim.org and posts it to the wiki? Everything else is agreed and appreciated :-) Seb. PS: When writing this mail I got my hands dirty on the scratchpad of wikia.com: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VimTest http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Tip PPS: There are extensions for mediawiki that could be useful: To supply a HTML-Form to submit a tip: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Inputbox To order a list of pages by popularity http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php/Manual Both are installed on wikia.org
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On Wed, May 9, 2007 11:37 am, Sebastian Menge wrote: First, im not sure about what you mean by a) formatting standard and b) a script that supports the standard is a) something like a template in mediawiki-speak? see: http://home.comcast.net/~gerisch/MediaWikiTemplates.html http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates By formatting standard, I mean that we need to agree on how we want the tips to look once they're converted and posted to the wiki. Basically, what do we want the tips to look like so we can tweak the conversion script (if necessary). is b) something that reads the tips-db on vim.org and posts it to the wiki? Here, I'm referring to the script that will convert the scripts from their current format to their future, wiki-fied format. We already have 3 or 4 scripts that could do this. Everything else is agreed and appreciated :-) Thanks! Seb. PS: When writing this mail I got my hands dirty on the scratchpad of wikia.com: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VimTest http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Tip PPS: There are extensions for mediawiki that could be useful: To supply a HTML-Form to submit a tip: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Inputbox To order a list of pages by popularity http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php/Manual Both are installed on wikia.org We do have a Wikia site available if we want it (http://vim.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page). I agree with you; it has a lot of nice features, and may give us a bit more flexibility than the wikibooks option. I think we should revisit this topic once we're ready to start the real conversion.
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Am Mittwoch, den 09.05.2007, 13:06 -0500 schrieb Tom Purl: We do have a Wikia site available if we want it (http://vim.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page). I agree with you; it has a lot of nice features, and may give us a bit more flexibility than the wikibooks option. I think we should revisit this topic once we're ready The features are mostly the same. In fact all major extensions are installed on wikibooks too. On any mediawiki try out the page Special:Version to see all installed extensions: http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Version Note the modules SpamBlacklist, UsernameBlacklist and ConfirmEdit (Captcha) Wikia.com is clearly aimed at making money with ads. Therefore I now vote for wikibooks.org. :-) Sebastian.
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Ian Tegebo wrote: On 5/6/07, Sebastian Menge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all Independent of the implementation used, I suggest to develop good guidelines. The Wiki should be really valuable and not redundant to vim-tips or mailing-lists. I would like to make another implementation independent suggestion; one could make a VimWiki more valuable by importing the _extremely_ valuable vim helpfiles into it. Please don't do this. It might sound like a nice idea, but it means making a branch that will be very hard to merge back into the help files of the distribution. I feel misunderstood but it serves me right for not saying what I mean... Synchronizing data is no fun, I agree. While I was up in the clouds I was imaging that the wiki would be the authoritative source for the helpfiles after doing an initial _import_. Then the text version would be exported as needed, e.g. end user runtime update or for a new release. That's the problem: It's very easy to change the text in the wiki in such a way it won't be possible to put back in the distribution. Also, I need to check every change, at least briefly (depend on where the change comes from). That is the only way to maintain the quality. Thus I would need a list of changes, preferably in the form of a patch. When people change the wiki in various ways this will quickly become a nightmare. Taking the existing help files and _adding_ to them is good. Especially if corrections and additions are marked somehow, so that they eventually end up in the distribution. Otherwise links to tips can be added. I'm currently working on the 7.1 release and then will go travelling, thus I won't have much time to discuss the tips wiki. I certainly encourage everybody to make it work. After all, a wiki is a collaborative work! -- From know your smileys: 2B|^2B Message from Shakespeare /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ ///sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org/// \\\help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org///
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 13:06 -0500, Tom Purl wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2007 11:37 am, Sebastian Menge wrote: First, im not sure about what you mean by a) formatting standard and b) a script that supports the standard is a) something like a template in mediawiki-speak? see: http://home.comcast.net/~gerisch/MediaWikiTemplates.html http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates By formatting standard, I mean that we need to agree on how we want the tips to look once they're converted and posted to the wiki. Basically, what do we want the tips to look like so we can tweak the conversion script (if necessary). Put me down as voting for 'simplistic'. ie no fancy boxes/backgrounds just bold headings and maybe a splash of Vim green somewhere. (Man pages come to mind) is b) something that reads the tips-db on vim.org and posts it to the wiki? Here, I'm referring to the script that will convert the scripts from their current format to their future, wiki-fied format. We already have 3 or 4 scripts that could do this. Everything else is agreed and appreciated :-) Thanks! Seb. PS: When writing this mail I got my hands dirty on the scratchpad of wikia.com: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VimTest http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Tip PPS: There are extensions for mediawiki that could be useful: To supply a HTML-Form to submit a tip: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Inputbox To order a list of pages by popularity http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php/Manual Both are installed on wikia.org We do have a Wikia site available if we want it (http://vim.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page). I agree with you; it has a lot of nice features, and may give us a bit more flexibility than the wikibooks option. I think we should revisit this topic once we're ready to start the real conversion. cheers, -- Mark
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On Tue, May 8, 2007 3:32 pm, Bram Moolenaar wrote: The main goal now is to get the Vim tips collection back to live. It has been dead for three months now! I wasn't aware of this, and it's definitely a problem. Here's what I propose we do: 1. Finalize a tip formatting standard. 2. Use the best available script that supports this standard. 3. Update the best available script if necessary. 4. Revise the standard if necessary. 5. Convert a tips sample. 6. Review the sample and revise the script if necessary. Once we're done with all of that, we can revisit the question of which wiki we'll use and then convert all of the tips. Since this project is lagging, let's also use the following standards: 1. Let's use this mailing list to coordinate the project. All comments regarding wiki page format, however, should be written to the talk section of the affected wiki page. If you're unsure as to where to post your comment, then just post it to this mailing list. 2. Let's set a deadline for signing off of the wiki formatting standard of 5/21. 2. Let's set a deadline for determining the best conversion script of standard of 6/4. This is just a start, and I'm open to all opinions/criticism. I just want to give this project a shot in the arm so that we can resurrect one of the best features of the Vim editor. What do yo guys think? Perhaps we can figure out some clever way to also make the help files available with links between the tips and the help files. Thus in the help file you would see some link that takes you to a tip associated with the text at that position. But without that the tips are still very useful. -- From know your smileys: O:-) Saint /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ ///sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org /// \\\help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On Wed, May 9, 2007 11:37 am, Sebastian Menge wrote: First, im not sure about what you mean by a) formatting standard and b) a script that supports the standard is a) something like a template in mediawiki-speak? see: http://home.comcast.net/~gerisch/MediaWikiTemplates.html http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates By formatting standard, I mean that we need to agree on how we want the tips to look once they're converted and posted to the wiki. Basically, what do we want the tips to look like so we can tweak the conversion script (if necessary). is b) something that reads the tips-db on vim.org and posts it to the wiki? Here, I'm referring to the script that will convert the scripts from their current format to their future, wiki-fied format. We already have 3 or 4 scripts that could do this. Everything else is agreed and appreciated :-) Thanks! Seb. PS: When writing this mail I got my hands dirty on the scratchpad of wikia.com: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VimTest http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Tip PPS: There are extensions for mediawiki that could be useful: To supply a HTML-Form to submit a tip: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Inputbox To order a list of pages by popularity http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php/Manual Both are installed on wikia.org We do have a Wikia site available if we want it (http://vim.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page). I agree with you; it has a lot of nice features, and may give us a bit more flexibility than the wikibooks option. I think we should revisit this topic once we're ready to start the real conversion.
RE: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
We do have a Wikia site available if we want it (http://vim.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page). I agree with you; it has a lot of nice features, and may give us a bit more flexibility than the wikibooks option. I think we should revisit this topic once we're ready to start the real conversion. No offense intended to any of the involved parties, but I just want to point out that I've seen great ideas suffer death by committee. Someone becomes a cheerleader trying to get a lot of others involved, nothing happens, then the idea just languishes and eventually dies. What I found myself doing in the past was to just *do* something, then unveil it to the others involved. One place where I worked, my 2 biggest contributions which had *the* highest impact on the company in general, I had to quite literally wait for him to be out sick one day so I could disregard what he was telling me (ie, refusing to give me permission to work on what he even acknowledged was a good idea, saying, Yeah, it's a good idea, but there are more important things I have for you to do...), just so I could get started on the proof-of-concept version of what I was proposing, then thankfully he was out sick for *another* day so I could polish it somewhat and put some finishing touches on it. Once I already *did* it, the idea took hold, and other departments also started to use it. Now, I have zero idea just how much work is involved in making a wiki, but if it's enough for one person to do... hey, have at it. Otherwise, if you end up waiting for a consensus as to which wiki software to use, which site to use, /ad nauseam/, it's likely not going to get done. At least that's been my experience, which is why I, to quote the old saw, find it easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Am Mittwoch, den 09.05.2007, 13:06 -0500 schrieb Tom Purl: We do have a Wikia site available if we want it (http://vim.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page). I agree with you; it has a lot of nice features, and may give us a bit more flexibility than the wikibooks option. I think we should revisit this topic once we're ready The features are mostly the same. In fact all major extensions are installed on wikibooks too. On any mediawiki try out the page Special:Version to see all installed extensions: http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Version Note the modules SpamBlacklist, UsernameBlacklist and ConfirmEdit (Captcha) Wikia.com is clearly aimed at making money with ads. Therefore I now vote for wikibooks.org. :-) Sebastian.
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Original Message Subject: RE: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option From: Gene Kwiecinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, May 09, 2007 1:35 pm To: Tom Purl [EMAIL PROTECTED], Vim Mailing List vim@vim.org [snip] Yeah, it's a good idea, but there are more important things I have for you to do...), [snip] Wow, you had one of those guys too? We just barely got rid of ours a few weeks ago. He moved on to greater opportunities. Bright guy, but to follow his lead, you'd just never get to do anything!
RE: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Yeah, it's a good idea, but there are more important things I have for you to do...), Wow, you had one of those guys too? We just barely got rid of ours a few weeks ago. He moved on to greater opportunities. Bright guy, but to follow his lead, you'd just never get to do anything! Thankfully, I'm long out of there, so I don't have to put up with much of that. But yeah, his famous explanation is that I was down there holding hand just slightly off the desk busy doing things that to me seemed important, but he was up here holding hand significantly higher, presumably because he was more in-tune with the Master Plan(tm) of what the company needed to get done. The only difference was that doing things His Way(tm), I was still taking care of the minutiae that I was *already* doing, only having to wait for his permission to do so. Just like the infamous Dilbert car2n where Pointy-Haired Boss gives him an assignment, he goes ticka-ticka-ticka on his keyboard while PHB is prattling on about something, then says Done!, that's pretty much what I was doing there. Going Through Channels(tm), my friend there would write up the fix-request, give it to her boss, who'd sit on it a few days, then forward it to my grandboss, who'd then give it to my boss, who'd then give it to me... typically a week or more after it was first written-up. And usually, I got the heads-up and just did the fix directly, actually implementing the fix, testing it, etc., well before I'd even see the paperwork. That was the more efficient way of *not* Going Through Channels(tm). And of course, when GTCing, some things would be held up in paperwork so long, that by the time I'd see it, it would have to be done, like *that* *day*. Feh. Anyhoo, sorry for the tirade, but back to the wiki, sometimes the only way to get one done at all is to just do it yourself, screw anyone else's opinions beforehand, then unveil it at the end. Use it, or not, your choice... If it ends up with too much spam, or is an ugly format, or the site itself is unreliable, okay, *then* let the critics have at it and try to do one better. Difference is, *you've* got one, and *they* don't, so by default you had that much more to show for it. Just my 2c...
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Ian Tegebo wrote: On 5/6/07, Sebastian Menge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all Independent of the implementation used, I suggest to develop good guidelines. The Wiki should be really valuable and not redundant to vim-tips or mailing-lists. I would like to make another implementation independent suggestion; one could make a VimWiki more valuable by importing the _extremely_ valuable vim helpfiles into it. Please don't do this. It might sound like a nice idea, but it means making a branch that will be very hard to merge back into the help files of the distribution. I feel misunderstood but it serves me right for not saying what I mean... Synchronizing data is no fun, I agree. While I was up in the clouds I was imaging that the wiki would be the authoritative source for the helpfiles after doing an initial _import_. Then the text version would be exported as needed, e.g. end user runtime update or for a new release. That's the problem: It's very easy to change the text in the wiki in such a way it won't be possible to put back in the distribution. Also, I need to check every change, at least briefly (depend on where the change comes from). That is the only way to maintain the quality. Thus I would need a list of changes, preferably in the form of a patch. When people change the wiki in various ways this will quickly become a nightmare. Taking the existing help files and _adding_ to them is good. Especially if corrections and additions are marked somehow, so that they eventually end up in the distribution. Otherwise links to tips can be added. I'm currently working on the 7.1 release and then will go travelling, thus I won't have much time to discuss the tips wiki. I certainly encourage everybody to make it work. After all, a wiki is a collaborative work! -- From know your smileys: 2B|^2B Message from Shakespeare /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ ///sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org/// \\\help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org///
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 13:06 -0500, Tom Purl wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2007 11:37 am, Sebastian Menge wrote: First, im not sure about what you mean by a) formatting standard and b) a script that supports the standard is a) something like a template in mediawiki-speak? see: http://home.comcast.net/~gerisch/MediaWikiTemplates.html http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates By formatting standard, I mean that we need to agree on how we want the tips to look once they're converted and posted to the wiki. Basically, what do we want the tips to look like so we can tweak the conversion script (if necessary). Put me down as voting for 'simplistic'. ie no fancy boxes/backgrounds just bold headings and maybe a splash of Vim green somewhere. (Man pages come to mind) is b) something that reads the tips-db on vim.org and posts it to the wiki? Here, I'm referring to the script that will convert the scripts from their current format to their future, wiki-fied format. We already have 3 or 4 scripts that could do this. Everything else is agreed and appreciated :-) Thanks! Seb. PS: When writing this mail I got my hands dirty on the scratchpad of wikia.com: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/VimTest http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Tip PPS: There are extensions for mediawiki that could be useful: To supply a HTML-Form to submit a tip: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Inputbox To order a list of pages by popularity http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php/Manual Both are installed on wikia.org We do have a Wikia site available if we want it (http://vim.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page). I agree with you; it has a lot of nice features, and may give us a bit more flexibility than the wikibooks option. I think we should revisit this topic once we're ready to start the real conversion. cheers, -- Mark
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Am Montag, den 07.05.2007, 16:07 -0700 schrieb Ian Tegebo: The Wiki would ideally understand how to link to vim-scripts and vim-tips like vimonline currently does. As a bonus, mailing-list posts would also linkable Easy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interwiki#Shorthand_for_non-wiki_sites For Wikia: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Interwiki_map But this touches the critical point: The real question is, howto organize/access existing contributions (and contribution channels) from a wiki. Wikipages are generic, while tips, scripts, plugins, helpfiles etc. have more structure and - perhaps because of that - an established infrastructure. There is nothing against writing new things freely in the wiki and then, afterwards, copy them to svn or make a script/plugin/syntax-file/tutor or whatever ... Probably one could also easily write some html-form that submits a tip/script to the database on vim.org I would like to see the VimWiki as a kind of portal to the plethora of vim-related material. (Recall the slogan: Avoid redundancy!) In such a community-driven portal, each contributor has an interest to get her contribution found. Thus there is no need for a centralized management as on vim.org. A question to the experienced users/developers: How is that plethora organized internally? What are the main (most important, most popular) sections? Sebastian.
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Ian Tegebo wrote: On 5/6/07, Sebastian Menge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all Independent of the implementation used, I suggest to develop good guidelines. The Wiki should be really valuable and not redundant to vim-tips or mailing-lists. I would like to make another implementation independent suggestion; one could make a VimWiki more valuable by importing the _extremely_ valuable vim helpfiles into it. Please don't do this. It might sound like a nice idea, but it means making a branch that will be very hard to merge back into the help files of the distribution. Please use the wiki for tips. That is an addition to the help files. For example, I would love to be able to quickly correct spelling mistakes or contribute to plugin helpfiles a la a Wiki interface. I could then imagine updating my local helpfiles through the Wiki interface via a sync-plugin. If you see spelling mistakes in the help files please send them to me. I just fixed 250 of them, because someone send me a list. That's useful for everyone. The main goal now is to get the Vim tips collection back to live. It has been dead for three months now! Perhaps we can figure out some clever way to also make the help files available with links between the tips and the help files. Thus in the help file you would see some link that takes you to a tip associated with the text at that position. But without that the tips are still very useful. -- From know your smileys: O:-) Saint /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ ///sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org/// \\\help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org///
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On 2007-05-08, Ian Tegebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/8/07, Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian Tegebo wrote: I would like to make another implementation independent suggestion; one could make a VimWiki more valuable by importing the _extremely_ valuable vim helpfiles into it. Please don't do this. It might sound like a nice idea, but it means making a branch that will be very hard to merge back into the help files of the distribution. I feel misunderstood but it serves me right for not saying what I mean... Synchronizing data is no fun, I agree. While I was up in the clouds I was imaging that the wiki would be the authoritative source for the helpfiles after doing an initial _import_. Then the text version would be exported as needed, e.g. end user runtime update or for a new release. This seems like a bad idea. The vim help files are an authoritative source because their content is under the control of an authority: Bram. Others are encouraged to submit patches that correct errors or clarify wording, but before any of those patches are applied, Bram looks at them to be sure they are correct and consistent with the help files' style. A wiki allows every Tom, Dick and Harry to make changes to it, whether they know what they're talking about or not. Wikis are useful, but it's difficult to ensure their correctness. Requiring Bram to vet every page before it is included in vim's help files would be an undue burden on him as well as a poor use of his time. A wiki is a good idea, but the content should be separate from the help files. Regards, Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Mobile Broadband Division | Spokane, Washington, USA
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On 5/8/07, Gary Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2007-05-08, Ian Tegebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/8/07, Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian Tegebo wrote: I would like to make another implementation independent suggestion; one could make a VimWiki more valuable by importing the _extremely_ valuable vim helpfiles into it. Please don't do this. It might sound like a nice idea, but it means making a branch that will be very hard to merge back into the help files of the distribution. I feel misunderstood but it serves me right for not saying what I mean... Synchronizing data is no fun, I agree. While I was up in the clouds I was imaging that the wiki would be the authoritative source for the helpfiles after doing an initial _import_. Then the text version would be exported as needed, e.g. end user runtime update or for a new release. This seems like a bad idea. The vim help files are an authoritative source because their content is under the control of an authority: Bram. Others are encouraged to submit patches that correct errors or clarify wording, but before any of those patches are applied, Bram looks at them to be sure they are correct and consistent with the help files' style. I was assuming the wiki that would be chosen would allow for some level of access control. I'm also assuming a group of trusted long-time users could be delegated the responsibility of administering the wiki. If Bram is the only one who should make changes to an object than I agree that those objects wouldn't be useful in a wiki. I think it's possible to have a protected part of the wiki for helpfiles that is write restricted and have another part that is more open that can easily reference those files. Of course, if the value added by more hands on the helpfiles doesn't exceed the cost in maintenance than this is a poor choice. I don't think I've really seen any issues with updates to helpfiles, they were just an example. So far I think the point was to just be able to link to parts of them more easily - I didn't really mean to dwell on the help system. I was just hoping to carry the point that wikis _can_ provide a lot of valuable function if properly cultivated. In all this I've lost track of what the purpose of a VimWiki would be. Was it just meant to host vim tips? Thinking about the format of tips now, I wonder if a blog format wouldn't be more suitable. For example, tips are posts that then have comments while most blogs have these features as well as search and RSS. VimBlog? To this end I wonder if there are enough people to support more apps given the work load the vimonline team has: Bugs https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=391887group_id=27891func=browse Features https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=391890group_id=27891func=browse -- Ian Tegebo
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Am Montag, den 07.05.2007, 16:07 -0700 schrieb Ian Tegebo: The Wiki would ideally understand how to link to vim-scripts and vim-tips like vimonline currently does. As a bonus, mailing-list posts would also linkable Easy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interwiki#Shorthand_for_non-wiki_sites For Wikia: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Interwiki_map But this touches the critical point: The real question is, howto organize/access existing contributions (and contribution channels) from a wiki. Wikipages are generic, while tips, scripts, plugins, helpfiles etc. have more structure and - perhaps because of that - an established infrastructure. There is nothing against writing new things freely in the wiki and then, afterwards, copy them to svn or make a script/plugin/syntax-file/tutor or whatever ... Probably one could also easily write some html-form that submits a tip/script to the database on vim.org I would like to see the VimWiki as a kind of portal to the plethora of vim-related material. (Recall the slogan: Avoid redundancy!) In such a community-driven portal, each contributor has an interest to get her contribution found. Thus there is no need for a centralized management as on vim.org. A question to the experienced users/developers: How is that plethora organized internally? What are the main (most important, most popular) sections? Sebastian.
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Am Dienstag 08 Mai 2007 schrieb Ian Tegebo: It's fun to dream! I'm serious about getting the helpfiles imported into the Wiki though. I know about the VimDoc project; I think this could be the next evolution in that direction. Well, first one of the administrators of http://sourceforge.net/projects/vim need to activate the Wiki http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/usr_toc.html Or one of the http://sourceforge.net/projects/vimdoc administrators. In fact - for your idea that would be better! vimdoc could only consist of the online help and nothing else which would make import / export easier. Martin -- Martin Krischik mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On 5/8/07, Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian Tegebo wrote: On 5/6/07, Sebastian Menge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all Independent of the implementation used, I suggest to develop good guidelines. The Wiki should be really valuable and not redundant to vim-tips or mailing-lists. I would like to make another implementation independent suggestion; one could make a VimWiki more valuable by importing the _extremely_ valuable vim helpfiles into it. Please don't do this. It might sound like a nice idea, but it means making a branch that will be very hard to merge back into the help files of the distribution. I feel misunderstood but it serves me right for not saying what I mean... Synchronizing data is no fun, I agree. While I was up in the clouds I was imaging that the wiki would be the authoritative source for the helpfiles after doing an initial _import_. Then the text version would be exported as needed, e.g. end user runtime update or for a new release. Please use the wiki for tips. That is an addition to the help files. For example, I would love to be able to quickly correct spelling mistakes or contribute to plugin helpfiles a la a Wiki interface. I could then imagine updating my local helpfiles through the Wiki interface via a sync-plugin. If you see spelling mistakes in the help files please send them to me. I just fixed 250 of them, because someone send me a list. That's useful for everyone. The main goal now is to get the Vim tips collection back to live. It has been dead for three months now! Does the VimOnline team want help? How does one sign up? There are a lot of bugs at the sourceforge site that aren't triaged. Some are misdirected vim-dev@/vim@ posts. -- Ian Tegebo
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On 2007-05-08, Ian Tegebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/8/07, Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian Tegebo wrote: I would like to make another implementation independent suggestion; one could make a VimWiki more valuable by importing the _extremely_ valuable vim helpfiles into it. Please don't do this. It might sound like a nice idea, but it means making a branch that will be very hard to merge back into the help files of the distribution. I feel misunderstood but it serves me right for not saying what I mean... Synchronizing data is no fun, I agree. While I was up in the clouds I was imaging that the wiki would be the authoritative source for the helpfiles after doing an initial _import_. Then the text version would be exported as needed, e.g. end user runtime update or for a new release. This seems like a bad idea. The vim help files are an authoritative source because their content is under the control of an authority: Bram. Others are encouraged to submit patches that correct errors or clarify wording, but before any of those patches are applied, Bram looks at them to be sure they are correct and consistent with the help files' style. A wiki allows every Tom, Dick and Harry to make changes to it, whether they know what they're talking about or not. Wikis are useful, but it's difficult to ensure their correctness. Requiring Bram to vet every page before it is included in vim's help files would be an undue burden on him as well as a poor use of his time. A wiki is a good idea, but the content should be separate from the help files. Regards, Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Mobile Broadband Division | Spokane, Washington, USA
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On 5/8/07, Gary Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2007-05-08, Ian Tegebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/8/07, Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian Tegebo wrote: I would like to make another implementation independent suggestion; one could make a VimWiki more valuable by importing the _extremely_ valuable vim helpfiles into it. Please don't do this. It might sound like a nice idea, but it means making a branch that will be very hard to merge back into the help files of the distribution. I feel misunderstood but it serves me right for not saying what I mean... Synchronizing data is no fun, I agree. While I was up in the clouds I was imaging that the wiki would be the authoritative source for the helpfiles after doing an initial _import_. Then the text version would be exported as needed, e.g. end user runtime update or for a new release. This seems like a bad idea. The vim help files are an authoritative source because their content is under the control of an authority: Bram. Others are encouraged to submit patches that correct errors or clarify wording, but before any of those patches are applied, Bram looks at them to be sure they are correct and consistent with the help files' style. I was assuming the wiki that would be chosen would allow for some level of access control. I'm also assuming a group of trusted long-time users could be delegated the responsibility of administering the wiki. If Bram is the only one who should make changes to an object than I agree that those objects wouldn't be useful in a wiki. I think it's possible to have a protected part of the wiki for helpfiles that is write restricted and have another part that is more open that can easily reference those files. Of course, if the value added by more hands on the helpfiles doesn't exceed the cost in maintenance than this is a poor choice. I don't think I've really seen any issues with updates to helpfiles, they were just an example. So far I think the point was to just be able to link to parts of them more easily - I didn't really mean to dwell on the help system. I was just hoping to carry the point that wikis _can_ provide a lot of valuable function if properly cultivated. In all this I've lost track of what the purpose of a VimWiki would be. Was it just meant to host vim tips? Thinking about the format of tips now, I wonder if a blog format wouldn't be more suitable. For example, tips are posts that then have comments while most blogs have these features as well as search and RSS. VimBlog? To this end I wonder if there are enough people to support more apps given the work load the vimonline team has: Bugs https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=391887group_id=27891func=browse Features https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=391890group_id=27891func=browse -- Ian Tegebo
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On 5/6/07, Sebastian Menge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all Independent of the implementation used, I suggest to develop good guidelines. The Wiki should be really valuable and not redundant to vim-tips or mailing-lists. I would like to make another implementation independent suggestion; one could make a VimWiki more valuable by importing the _extremely_ valuable vim helpfiles into it. For example, I would love to be able to quickly correct spelling mistakes or contribute to plugin helpfiles a la a Wiki interface. I could then imagine updating my local helpfiles through the Wiki interface via a sync-plugin. The Wiki would ideally understand how to link to vim-scripts and vim-tips like vimonline currently does. As a bonus, mailing-list posts would also linkable and magical indexing would populate the bottom of each Wiki page with relevant search results from the list similar to O'Reilly's Safari. It's fun to dream! I'm serious about getting the helpfiles imported into the Wiki though. I know about the VimDoc project; I think this could be the next evolution in that direction. http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/usr_toc.html -- Ian Tegebo
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Am Sonntag 06 Mai 2007 schrieb Sebastian Menge: PS: I would clearly prefer wikia.org over sf.net (I would not build up upon any beta ...) The beta officialy ended. Martin -- Martin Krischik mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
On 5/6/07, Sebastian Menge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all Independent of the implementation used, I suggest to develop good guidelines. The Wiki should be really valuable and not redundant to vim-tips or mailing-lists. I would like to make another implementation independent suggestion; one could make a VimWiki more valuable by importing the _extremely_ valuable vim helpfiles into it. For example, I would love to be able to quickly correct spelling mistakes or contribute to plugin helpfiles a la a Wiki interface. I could then imagine updating my local helpfiles through the Wiki interface via a sync-plugin. The Wiki would ideally understand how to link to vim-scripts and vim-tips like vimonline currently does. As a bonus, mailing-list posts would also linkable and magical indexing would populate the bottom of each Wiki page with relevant search results from the list similar to O'Reilly's Safari. It's fun to dream! I'm serious about getting the helpfiles imported into the Wiki though. I know about the VimDoc project; I think this could be the next evolution in that direction. http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/usr_toc.html -- Ian Tegebo
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Hi all Independent of the implementation used, I suggest to develop good guidelines. The Wiki should be really valuable and not redundant to vim-tips or mailing-lists. I think it's also important to have some people feeling responsible for it so if someone doesn't follow the rules, they will tidy it up quickly. my 2 cents, Sebastian. PS: I would clearly prefer wikia.org over sf.net (I would not build up upon any beta ...)
Re: VimWiki - again - but with a brand new option
Hi all Independent of the implementation used, I suggest to develop good guidelines. The Wiki should be really valuable and not redundant to vim-tips or mailing-lists. I think it's also important to have some people feeling responsible for it so if someone doesn't follow the rules, they will tidy it up quickly. my 2 cents, Sebastian. PS: I would clearly prefer wikia.org over sf.net (I would not build up upon any beta ...)
