Re: Straw poll on wiki replacement

--0000000000003a4e6405a91b1404
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 6:10 PM Solomon Peachy via rockbox-dev <
[email protected]> 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.

--0000000000003a4e6405a91b1404
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"fon=
t-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><span style=3D"font-family:Arial,He=
lvetica,sans-serif">On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 6:10 PM Solomon Peachy via rock=
box-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]=
xx.se</a>&gt; wrote:</span><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:=
1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Do we care about having an int=
eractive editor with changes going live <br>
instantly, or can it be done via git commits with the live site <br>
auto-updated as part of a commit hook?<br>
<br>
At the end of the day, the result is the same (revision-controlled <br>
templated knowledgebase) with a roughly similar level of migration <br>
effort (new template, migrating foswiki markup, server-side <br>
infrastructure, etc etc..)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class=
=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">No, =
IMO they are not the same at all.=C2=A0 Not=C2=A0to boast but I have contri=
buted a lot lot wiki-like edits, articles, and posts.=C2=A0 Probably way ov=
er 10,000.=C2=A0 Usually if you are like me, you make the edit/fix/error yo=
u saw, hit submit, and then re-read it, being proud of your free contributi=
on.=C2=A0 And, exactly then, you find another thing to edit and fix.=C2=A0 =
And so on --- until after a while you&#39;ve written a real masterpiece.=C2=
=A0 The instant you cannot get that live feedback and see a &quot;your edit=
 is awaiting approval&quot; (or the equivalent awaiting an unknown amount o=
f time for an auto-update) it&#39;s a no-go feeling like &quot;That&#39;s t=
he last time I ever help those aholes out.&quot;=C2=A0 No masterpieces, onl=
y half-butted cruddy lame contributions with spelling errors etc.=C2=A0 Tha=
t&#39;s exactly what non-live editing is not asking but more begging for.</=
div></div></div></div>

--0000000000003a4e6405a91b1404--