[Scons-dev] What to replace the wiki with?

[Gary Oberbrunner]

I would like to find a system that has some kind of online
editor/previewer, rather than a pure clone/edit/push/pull-request system
(whether it's git or hg), because sometimes you want to see how your markup
will actually look on the site before pushing it.  (Dirk, I think that
would also help the "occasional contributor" overhead you're concerned
about.)  I do think something hg or git-based would be preferable.  And
yes, we have to move it off our current hosting provider because DoS
attacks on our MoinMoin wiki bring the shared server to its knees on a
somewhat regular basis.  And I'm not ready to be sysadmin of another amazon
micro instance, so we need a hosted solution.

Anyway, I have the existing wiki mostly converted from moin to markdown
(github flavor, but I could redo it as a different flavor depending on what
we choose) with only a few hand edits necessary.  Some things like the
Bug() macro won't translate, but I think we can live without that.  I
didn't find any decent tools to convert from moin to rst, so I think going
with a markdown solution would be easier than rst at this point, though I
think pandoc can convert between markdown and rst, so if needed we can do
that -- not sure how lossy that conversion would be.

So that's the state of the wiki world at this point.  I'll try to make
progress over the weekend but am not sold on a particular solution;
bitbucket seems like the easiest path right now but I'm open to other
possibilities if they meet the above criteria.


On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 4:12 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think we just need hosting with better protection.
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:
> > Bill,
> >
> >
> > On 12.12.2014 00:52, Bill Deegan wrote:
> >
> > I'm thinking a hg repo and some sort of ci to process it when new changes
> > come in.
> > Or use readthedocs.org (It has integration with bitbucket for such
> already)
> >
> > That way users and do pull requests and also the webserver only has to
> > handle serving static pages.
> >
> > Is it reasonable to expect that users who wanted to contribute to
> wiki-like
> > content could handle mercurial?
> >
> > it's probably not so much about hg (or any other tool, for that matter),
> but
> > about the workflow that's required for getting one's changes in. To me it
> > feels like we're moving away from a more "scratchpad"-like medium, to
> static
> > pages. That would be okay if we had several authors and technical writers
> > that could create lots of pages with content. But this would mean that we
> > provide all the information, and we are responsible for keeping things
> > alive.
> > If that's what we want, fine.
> > It more or less boils down to the question: Do we want a Wiki (static
> pages)
> > for us, or for our users?
> >
> > Just some late night thoughts, to fuel the discussion...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dirk
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scons-dev mailing list
> > Scons-dev at scons.org
> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
> >
>
>
>
> --
> anatoly t.
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev at scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>



-- 
Gary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20141212/7513a813/attachment.html>