On Feb 17, 2008 12:52 PM, Alejandro Forero Cuervo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > what remains relevant is that its bloody hard to document anything
> > even slightly nontrivial in it.
>
> While this is not my perception, I've heard this claim in the past. I
> would like to see if Svnwiki can be
> All the above is related to using a browser which is not suited to
> the task. Use a light-weight browser that embeds a real editor like
> vim or emacs or use firefox with the right plugin like
> ViewWithSource. I hated Wikis before I found these two solutions.
I don't think this addresses all
> id like to entitle this next rant 'why wikis are highly suboptimal
> for documentation', if i may.
Well, I mostly agree with the points you are raising, which I would
summarize as 'having to edit text for hours using a web interface
sucks' (even if you use plugins or special browsers so that you
This is correct. In fact, I edit wiki pages almost exclusively in
Emacs, commit them to SVN, and wait 30 seconds for the post-commit
script to update the web page. I find that extremely convenient,
particularly with my local installation of svnwiki.
-Ivan
Daishi Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Daishi Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it true that if you have svn write access,
> you can just edit the wiki/* files and commit them,
> which reflects to the web pages?
> My understanding is that this is a nice feature of svnwiki.
Yes, you're correct on
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, a r wrote:
BTW, I agree with elf that extracted function signatures (+ one line
descriptions) could be useful for certain applications (editor/IDE
support, interactive mode help etc.). This however has nothing to do
with an end-user documentation.
erm, thats not actually
Hi,
Is it true that if you have svn write access,
you can just edit the wiki/* files and commit them,
which reflects to the web pages?
My understanding is that this is a nice feature of svnwiki.
Well, my assumption is that developers use Emacs or Vim,
non-developers don't and developers could get
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Stephen Eilert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a r wrote:
> >
> > I don't want any API docs automatically generated from source code
> > comments - when separated from the code these comments are just a pile
> > of useless random notes. Documentation _must_ be writ
a r wrote:
I don't want any API docs automatically generated from source code
comments - when separated from the code these comments are just a pile
of useless random notes. Documentation _must_ be written in separation
from the code. Yes, it is an additional effort, bu if you can't afford
it si
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, a r wrote:
Hi,
Just a few comments from a Chicken user.
I really like searchable, accessible and editable documents on the
web. On the other hand, I have never used any docs shipped with eggs -
it's simply to much hassle to browse the directories if I can type two
words in
Hi,
Just a few comments from a Chicken user.
I really like searchable, accessible and editable documents on the
web. On the other hand, I have never used any docs shipped with eggs -
it's simply to much hassle to browse the directories if I can type two
words in Google. Wiki docs (and eggs concep
w3m has massive display issues in general, eespecially with tables.
elinks never seems to work on my machine. i dont know why. i also hate the
elinks entry format.
i use lynx and a very custom stripped-down ancient version of mozilla. i
(stupidly) used mozilla, cause wikis in general dont ge
Thanks for the script Peter, I had been looking for a way to generate local
html from svnwiki source for ages (particularly while developing
eggdoc-svnwiki). The complexity and dependencies weren't worth figuring
it out, though. To this point w3m or cut/paste has worked acceptably.
On 2/14/08, P
Elf,
Not to prolong this discussion further, but w3m is lightweight and
automatically shells out to your editor of choice for forms, and
works fine with the wiki. I'm sure elinks works similarly.
On 2/14/08, Elf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in a brief response to other posts: im not on a machin
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 02:19:46PM -0600, Jim Ursetto wrote:
> Select all in the preview window, cut and paste to Emacs or Vim, edit, and
> paste the text back to the wiki. I do it all the time, and it solves every one
> of these issues. (Modern browsers handle most of them, too.) You can also use
to respond to my own post, peter pointed out (nicely) that im an idiot who
hadnt heard of svnwiki that (surprise!) uses svn to grab the pages for
local editing. so my usability comments are probably not as relevant.
what remains relevant is that its bloody hard to document anything
even slig
Select all in the preview window, cut and paste to Emacs or Vim, edit, and
paste the text back to the wiki. I do it all the time, and it solves every one
of these issues. (Modern browsers handle most of them, too.) You can also use
`svn up` for the import step, but the preview window is still prefe
Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:54:51 -0800 (PST), elf wrote:
> so why did it take so long?
> a) im stuck in a tiny window in a tiny screen with no real text manipulation
> abilities.
> b) theres no search and replace. theres no way of even killing lines off.
> c) cut and paste is fickle about where the
id like to entitle this next rant 'why wikis are highly suboptimal for
documentation', if i may.
approximately 9 hours ago, i noticed that the documentation that i had
changed in the http wikidoc wasnt generating correctly. (for those
wondering for future endeavours, its not possible at the mo
19 matches
Mail list logo
