[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 01:40:13 +0200
Adam Atlas wrote:
> It can be effective for
> documentation, though, as long as it's clear that's what the site is
Well, the entire site doesn't have to be devoted to this; there are lots
of other things a I think a GNUstep wiki might be useful for. As long as
the spec part is set aside and self-contained, it should work.
> Or look at Wikipedia, probably the best proof that Wiki works. It's an
> effort to write an encyclopedia from scratch using Wiki, completely by
> volunteer contributors, and so far, it's been very successful.
I've had quick looks at them, and they do seem quite well organized (a
lot better than I'd expect :).
> As I said, most implementations of Wiki store complete revision
> history. If we were to set up a Wiki, it could be up-to-the-minute
> contributed and official documentation, and then the GNUstep developers
> could decide what goes into the official documentation.
This would be a very good arrangement, though I still have a few
concerns about distributing, change control (well, change notification),
and editing (my browser isn't my favorite text editor). Being able to
easily attach comments and updates to the official stuff sounds like a
very nice thing, though, so I think it'd be interesting to try :).
- Alexander Malmberg
Re: Documentation, Manuel Guesdon, 2002/09/25