Re: [glob2-devel] Wiki board

[Stephane Magnenat]

> I think that wiki is not good for discussions. Because you have no way to
> see that there's a discussion going on in a wiki page if you don't check
> them all regularly. We should use this mailing list to discuss stuff,
> that's much easier.

It depends the discussion. For task allocation and draft doc, even commented, 
it's cool. Some complexe discussion is better on ml. But discussion's results 
should be resumed and put on Wiki.

> I think that the manual (for eg.) should be fully written in xml docbook
> and not in wiki. Because if people add stuff to the wiki version of the
> manual we then have to extract each modification by hand and add it to the
> docbook manual. It's the same for any other content that is aimed to be
> integrated into the official documentation (docbook) or the website (olaf).

I agree totally here. Documentation source code is in CVS and final version 
should be on web site. Just ask me for CVS write access.

> That's the reason why it would be really great to have a wolaf (olaf wiki
> feature), because the editor is fully generic, you can edit txt, olaf
> syntax or xml docbook. And the top of the top would be an integration with
> the savannah cvs, so that anyone could very easily edit and create any
> document that were allowed for public access. There must be a way to
> translate on the fly docbook to html (with xsl?), and thus the latest
> version would always be availible online (such as for wiki or olaf). Thus,
> it could even be possible to extend olaf to a docbook (or whatever xml)
> syntax...

The problem is : your average load is more than 3. So is it really worth to 
reimplement one more wiki as there is so many lying around ? At the end, it's 
your decision, because if you do it and it's good, we'll take it.

Note that I do not share your critics about wiki's syntax : it's simple yet 
functionnal.

Have a nice day,

Steph