Nice flame Josh. This feed has been running for about a week now, and
we've had quite a bit of discussion in both directions. Sorry you
weren't in on it. I support you on this Matt.
> Guess we missed the memo... So the post on the 15th asking for
> involvement in this group (http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2009/1/15/ > rails-documentation-projects) was already too late for those wanting
> to help.
> It is sad to see something rejected just because the decision was made
> 4 days ago and proper input was not asked for publicly. Not all of us
> have time to keep up to the minute on our feed readers, and it looks
> like even if we did - it was too late.
> SignalWiki has ACL support, has been fairly active in the past and
> good test coverage. It has some anti-spam tools built-in, follows a
> lot of rails best practices, etc. It has content flagging, page
> caching, etc.
> I get the impression I am beating a dead horse despite nothing being
> setup yet. This should be an exciting process, and I realize we need
> a strong leader for it, but let's not dictate things and shutdown
> community involvement.
> On Jan 19, 2:28 am, "Matt Aimonetti" <mattaimone...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> guys, we are not coming back on our decision, we are moving ahead
>> with
>> dokuwiki and markdown and will re evaluate in few months.
>> - Matt
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Andy Shen <andy.s.s...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> +1 for signalwiki, it looks good.
>>> On Jan 19, 11:54 am, Josh Owens <joshua.ow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Guys,
>>>> I hate to point out the obvious, but why not use a Rails project
>>>> that
>>>> is already built and pretty much ready to go?
>>>> Granted, I suppose I have a vested interest, I guess, because I
>>>> would
>>>> like to see more activity on the project, and would welcome the
>>>> help.
>>>> I already have OpenID support, restful auth login system, akismet
>>>> support for spam checking wiki posts, etc.
>>>> On Jan 13, 4:18 pm, "Thomas Meeks" <tho...@thomasmeeks.com> wrote:
>>>>> DokuWiki sounds like the right choice to me. Tossing my vote
>>>>> that way.
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Matt Aimonetti <
>>> mattaimone...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> We decided to use DokuWiki for merb because it had the features
>>>>>> we
>>> need and
>>>>>> we had someone who knew the system and set it up for us.
>>>>>> It's an ok solution with really nice code highlight and a
>>>>>> simple ACL.
>>>>>> Templating the wiki is a total pain but that shouldn't be a major
>>> drawback.
>>>>>> (or maybe I just suck at dokuwiki)
>>>>>> The wiki app is pretty well supported and used by a lot of
>>>>>> people.
>>> The fact
>>>>>> that it doesn't use a DB makes it easy to export/backup.
>>>>>> JQuery uses mediawiki and their integration looks really nice.
>>>>>> I don't want to push one specific software, we need people who
>>>>>> are
>>> going to
>>>>>> support the wiki setup and write content to choose.
>>>>>> Hopefully, someone is going to write a Rails3 wiki and we'll be
>>>>>> able
>>> to
>>>>>> migrate smoothly later on.
>>>>>> - Matt
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Chris Conrey <
>>> con...@chrisconrey.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> And we have a winner. Content first - Platform a distant 2nd.
>>>>>>> So now which non-ruby Wiki do we want to use?
>>>>>>> DokuWiki, MediaWiki, Insitki?
>>>>>>> Chris Conrey
>>>>>>> chrisconrey.com
>>>>>>> Human->Geek Relations at Integrum
>>>>>>> @conrey on Twitter
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Dave Newton
>>>>>>> <newton.d...@yahoo.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Matt Aimonetti wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Are you volunteering to write a Rails wiki? How long do you
>>> think it
>>>>>>>>> will take to finish it so we can start working on it? What
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> migration to Rails3 and on going support?
>>>>>>>> <ObLurker>
>>>>>>>> Writing an RoR wiki when the "deadline" for better wiki
>>>>>>>> *content*
>>> is
>>>>>>>> March (by my calculations < 2 mos) is a Really Bad Idea.
>>>>>>>> Focus on content. *Then* focus on platform. Content migration
>>>>>>>> is a
>>> far
>>>>>>>> smaller (while still irritating) problem when compared to
>>>>>>>> writing a
>>>>>>>> full-featured wiki. Put a disclaimer in if you're really
>>>>>>>> offended
>>> by
>>>>>>>> running on a non-RoR wiki, or use a lame RoR wiki and suck it
>>>>>>>> up
>>> until
>>>>>>>> it's fixed or a new one exists.
<jeremymcana...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think perhaps making a decision about a temporary blog solution
> within a week is fairly reasonable.
> We're not bound to DokuWiki.
> --Jeremy
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Josh Owens <joshua.ow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dave,
>> On Jan 19, 10:10 am, Dave Newton <newton.d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> IMO it's not dictating or shutting down community involvement to stick
>>> with a decision (not saying it can't be changed, just think the rhetoric
>>> is a bit over-stated).
>> I don't think I am over-stating anything here. Posting on the blog
>> about starting a process and then making a final decision within 24
>> hours seems like shutting out the community involvement here. Again,
>> I realize everyone is eager to get moving...
>> I am all for being pragmatic about getting something up, but at the
>> cost of shunning all the current Rails wiki offerings available?
>> Let's be pragmatic and choose a working Rails solution and make some
>> tweaks to it. I bet if we investigated more than 24 hours, we would
>> find more than 3 solutions available.
Josh Owens wrote: > On Jan 19, 10:10 am, Dave Newton <newton.d...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> IMO it's not dictating or shutting down community involvement to stick >> with a decision (not saying it can't be changed, just think the rhetoric >> is a bit over-stated).
> I don't think I am over-stating anything here. Posting on the blog > about starting a process and then making a final decision within 24 > hours seems like shutting out the community involvement here. Again, > I realize everyone is eager to get moving...
We'll have to agree to disagree. The wiki framework conversation went on for nearly a week (it's the 19th where I am, the 13th was almost a week ago).
> I am all for being pragmatic about getting something up, but at the > cost of shunning all the current Rails wiki offerings available?
Yeah, although again I think you're ratcheting up the rhetoric without reason. I personally haven't seen an RoR wiki that's as mature as the primary choices that were being looked at.
There's a quasi-official deadline of March for when we want the new content. The premise of the decision was to get it out of the way quickly to focus entirely on content, with the understanding that RoR wiki development could happen in parallel, and the choice of wikis could be re-evaluated.
My take on it right now is that developing structure and content is far and away the highest priority for the immediate future, and I think that makes sense--but I have no say in any of this, so it's up to the powers-that-be what happens at this point.
My apologies, I truly mean that. I didn't realize the decision was
final and I got upset about missing the deadline by 3 or 4 days. I
will look for constructive ways to participate in putting up great new
content.
In the mean time, I will certainly continue working on Signal and go
from having 77% (7/9) of the required features to have 100%. The
other niceties listed should fall into place while getting it up to
snuff - I look at this at a good way to get a roadmap for Signal.
Again, my apologies, I didn't mean to get everyone stirred up.
On Jan 19, 10:00 pm, Dave Newton <newton.d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Josh Owens wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 10:10 am, Dave Newton <newton.d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> IMO it's not dictating or shutting down community involvement to stick
> >> with a decision (not saying it can't be changed, just think the rhetoric
> >> is a bit over-stated).
> > I don't think I am over-stating anything here. Posting on the blog
> > about starting a process and then making a final decision within 24
> > hours seems like shutting out the community involvement here. Again,
> > I realize everyone is eager to get moving...
> We'll have to agree to disagree. The wiki framework conversation went on
> for nearly a week (it's the 19th where I am, the 13th was almost a week
> ago).
> > I am all for being pragmatic about getting something up, but at the
> > cost of shunning all the current Rails wiki offerings available?
> Yeah, although again I think you're ratcheting up the rhetoric without
> reason. I personally haven't seen an RoR wiki that's as mature as the
> primary choices that were being looked at.
> There's a quasi-official deadline of March for when we want the new
> content. The premise of the decision was to get it out of the way
> quickly to focus entirely on content, with the understanding that RoR
> wiki development could happen in parallel, and the choice of wikis could
> be re-evaluated.
> My take on it right now is that developing structure and content is far
> and away the highest priority for the immediate future, and I think that
> makes sense--but I have no say in any of this, so it's up to the
> powers-that-be what happens at this point.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Josh Owens <joshua.ow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey guys,
> My apologies, I truly mean that. I didn't realize the decision was
> final and I got upset about missing the deadline by 3 or 4 days. I
> will look for constructive ways to participate in putting up great new
> content.
> In the mean time, I will certainly continue working on Signal and go
> from having 77% (7/9) of the required features to have 100%. The
> other niceties listed should fall into place while getting it up to
> snuff - I look at this at a good way to get a roadmap for Signal.
> Again, my apologies, I didn't mean to get everyone stirred up.
> On Jan 19, 10:00 pm, Dave Newton <newton.d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Josh Owens wrote:
> > > On Jan 19, 10:10 am, Dave Newton <newton.d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> IMO it's not dictating or shutting down community involvement to stick
> > >> with a decision (not saying it can't be changed, just think the
> rhetoric
> > >> is a bit over-stated).
> > > I don't think I am over-stating anything here. Posting on the blog
> > > about starting a process and then making a final decision within 24
> > > hours seems like shutting out the community involvement here. Again,
> > > I realize everyone is eager to get moving...
> > We'll have to agree to disagree. The wiki framework conversation went on
> > for nearly a week (it's the 19th where I am, the 13th was almost a week
> > ago).
> > > I am all for being pragmatic about getting something up, but at the
> > > cost of shunning all the current Rails wiki offerings available?
> > Yeah, although again I think you're ratcheting up the rhetoric without
> > reason. I personally haven't seen an RoR wiki that's as mature as the
> > primary choices that were being looked at.
> > There's a quasi-official deadline of March for when we want the new
> > content. The premise of the decision was to get it out of the way
> > quickly to focus entirely on content, with the understanding that RoR
> > wiki development could happen in parallel, and the choice of wikis could
> > be re-evaluated.
> > My take on it right now is that developing structure and content is far
> > and away the highest priority for the immediate future, and I think that
> > makes sense--but I have no say in any of this, so it's up to the
> > powers-that-be what happens at this point.
Sometimes design by committee can lead to an unnecessarily long
discussion and not enough time for action. Let's go with DokuWiki, get
lots of good content in there, and worry about importing it into a
Rails3-based wiki later.
Jarin Udom
On Jan 13, 1:18 pm, "Thomas Meeks" <tho...@thomasmeeks.com> wrote:
> DokuWiki sounds like the right choice to me. Tossing my vote that way.
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Matt Aimonetti <mattaimone...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > We decided to use DokuWiki for merb because it had the features we need and
> > we had someone who knew the system and set it up for us.
> > It's an ok solution with really nice code highlight and a simple ACL.
> > Templating the wiki is a total pain but that shouldn't be a major drawback.
> > (or maybe I just suck at dokuwiki)
> > The wiki app is pretty well supported and used by a lot of people. The fact
> > that it doesn't use a DB makes it easy to export/backup.
> > JQuery uses mediawiki and their integration looks really nice.
> > I don't want to push one specific software, we need people who are going to
> > support the wiki setup and write content to choose.
> > Hopefully, someone is going to write a Rails3 wiki and we'll be able to
> > migrate smoothly later on.
> > - Matt
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Chris Conrey <con...@chrisconrey.com>wrote:
> >> And we have a winner. Content first - Platform a distant 2nd.
> >> So now which non-ruby Wiki do we want to use?
> >> DokuWiki, MediaWiki, Insitki?
> >> Chris Conrey
> >> chrisconrey.com
> >> Human->Geek Relations at Integrum
> >> @conrey on Twitter
> >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Dave Newton <newton.d...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> >>> Matt Aimonetti wrote:
> >>> > Are you volunteering to write a Rails wiki? How long do you think it
> >>> > will take to finish it so we can start working on it? What about
> >>> > migration to Rails3 and on going support?
> >>> <ObLurker>
> >>> Writing an RoR wiki when the "deadline" for better wiki *content* is
> >>> March (by my calculations < 2 mos) is a Really Bad Idea.
> >>> Focus on content. *Then* focus on platform. Content migration is a far
> >>> smaller (while still irritating) problem when compared to writing a
> >>> full-featured wiki. Put a disclaimer in if you're really offended by
> >>> running on a non-RoR wiki, or use a lame RoR wiki and suck it up until
> >>> it's fixed or a new one exists.
Since I'm heavily working on zena, I could prioritize the changes
needed for a wiki. For those out there who do not know zena, I think
it would be the *perfect* tool for the job (ok, I'm biased...). But
still, here are some information:
1. It's versioned and multi-lingual
2. it has great support for images and code highlighting
3. it's very easy to edit / add content
4. it's sexy, fast and stable
From a documentation point of view, zena has the *huge* advantage that
you can change anything into anything else. For example, you start
with a Page and some day latter, it gets bigger and becomes an
Article, a Tutorial or a Book.
With zena, you get an application where you can drag&drop things to
define relations such as "uses feature" or "related to concept".
What would be needed for a wiki:
* Logs for modifications not related to text (relations for example).
* Registration without user intervention
* Better diff view
With all this in mind, it could be possible to have a working
documentation site in no time.
Gaspard
On Jan 13, 9:49 pm, "Matt Aimonetti" <mattaimone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you volunteering to write a Rails wiki? How long do you think it will
> take to finish it so we can start working on it? What about migration to
> Rails3 and on going support?
> I would honestly prefer to have a Rails based wiki, or even a ruby based
> wiki if it would fit our needs, but so far, the only suggestions were:
> - let's write a rails wiki
> - let's look at a recent, unfinished experimentation in Ruby (see Pratik's
> email)
> The wiki needs to come back to life pretty quickly and I unless we find a
> Rails based solution, I'm afraid we will have to get started on something
> else until someone writes something we can move the wiki to.
> - Matt
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:35 PM, robokos <zol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I must say I agree with Theodore and Wills assertions that we must eat
> > our own dog food when it comes to the wiki. For one of the first
> > tangible outcomes of the Rails Activists to be a relaunched Ruby On
> > Rails wiki written in something other than Ruby On Rails would quiet
> > frankly *be seen* to be a lack of faith in our framework (even if this
> > isn't a factual observation).
> > Just wanted to highlight the potential PR implications of a non-Ruby
> > On Rails solution. Remember, this group will have high visibility and
> > the commentators will be quick to attack.
> > Perhaps the best solution for expediency would be to have a certain
> > part of the site in ruby on rails and then migrate other parts over
> > time.
> > -Rob
> > On Jan 14, 7:04 am, "Matt Aimonetti" <mattaimone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > While writing a new Rails3 based wiki is an interesting project, I think
> > it
> > > might not be part of the scope of our current project.
> > > We need the wiki to be totally awesome by RailsConf which is in May.
> > > If people are interested in leading the dev of a kick ass Rails 3 based
> > > wiki, we will certainly encourage them but we can't wait for that to
> > happen
> > > before we get started.
> > > Let's keep on arguing tho, I want to hear all the opinions, maybe someone
> > > knows a RoR based wiki that's awesome and we could use right away.
> > > - Matt
> > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Matt Jones <al2o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > While there are some solid existing solutions, I think that it could
> > > > be really helpful
> > > > to have a Rails-based wiki, as an detailed example for large-scale
> > > > apps in Rails.
> > > > Far too often, the only examples available for most technologies are
> > > > tiny, "toy"
> > > > applications; a real-life codebase would give Rails quite a boost. It
> > > > could also be viewed
> > > > as a giant-sized integration test for the whole framework, or as a
> > > > basis for doing more
> > > > optimization of the Rails core.
> > > > But now is the perfect time to migrate to *something* new, as
> > > > significant amounts of old
> > > > content are going to need to be revised/changed/totally rewritten for
> > > > Rails 3 anyway...
> > > > --Matt
> > > > On Jan 13, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Dana Jones wrote:
> > > > > Good point, Damir. But maybe that's a project the Activists could put
> > > > > on their radar, as a way of further advocating Ruby/Rails/Merb?
I just wanted to chime in and say I think the choice of wiki software
was a good one. I had my browser crash while I was editing a page, and
was very frustrated, and when I came back today to look at that page,
my draft was waiting for me. Without having to register or anything!
That was nice.
Cheers,
Alex
On Jan 13, 4:18 pm, "Thomas Meeks" <tho...@thomasmeeks.com> wrote:
> DokuWiki sounds like the right choice to me. Tossing my vote that way.
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Matt Aimonetti <mattaimone...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > We decided to use DokuWiki for merb because it had the features we need and
> > we had someone who knew the system and set it up for us.
> > It's an ok solution with really nice code highlight and a simple ACL.
> > Templating the wiki is a total pain but that shouldn't be a major drawback.
> > (or maybe I just suck at dokuwiki)
> > The wiki app is pretty well supported and used by a lot of people. The fact
> > that it doesn't use a DB makes it easy to export/backup.
> > JQuery uses mediawiki and their integration looks really nice.
> > I don't want to push one specific software, we need people who are going to
> > support the wiki setup and write content to choose.
> > Hopefully, someone is going to write a Rails3 wiki and we'll be able to
> > migrate smoothly later on.
> > - Matt
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Chris Conrey <con...@chrisconrey.com>wrote:
> >> And we have a winner. Content first - Platform a distant 2nd.
> >> So now which non-ruby Wiki do we want to use?
> >> DokuWiki, MediaWiki, Insitki?
> >> Chris Conrey
> >> chrisconrey.com
> >> Human->Geek Relations at Integrum
> >> @conrey on Twitter
> >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Dave Newton <newton.d...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> >>> Matt Aimonetti wrote:
> >>> > Are you volunteering to write a Rails wiki? How long do you think it
> >>> > will take to finish it so we can start working on it? What about
> >>> > migration to Rails3 and on going support?
> >>> <ObLurker>
> >>> Writing an RoR wiki when the "deadline" for better wiki *content* is
> >>> March (by my calculations < 2 mos) is a Really Bad Idea.
> >>> Focus on content. *Then* focus on platform. Content migration is a far
> >>> smaller (while still irritating) problem when compared to writing a
> >>> full-featured wiki. Put a disclaimer in if you're really offended by
> >>> running on a non-RoR wiki, or use a lame RoR wiki and suck it up until
> >>> it's fixed or a new one exists.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:30 PM, alexanderkahn <alexanderk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just wanted to chime in and say I think the choice of wiki software
> was a good one. I had my browser crash while I was editing a page, and
> was very frustrated, and when I came back today to look at that page,
> my draft was waiting for me. Without having to register or anything!
> That was nice.
> Cheers,
> Alex
> On Jan 13, 4:18 pm, "Thomas Meeks" <tho...@thomasmeeks.com> wrote:
>> DokuWiki sounds like the right choice to me. Tossing my vote that way.
>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Matt Aimonetti <mattaimone...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> > We decided to use DokuWiki for merb because it had the features we need and
>> > we had someone who knew the system and set it up for us.
>> > It's an ok solution with really nice code highlight and a simple ACL.
>> > Templating the wiki is a total pain but that shouldn't be a major drawback.
>> > (or maybe I just suck at dokuwiki)
>> > The wiki app is pretty well supported and used by a lot of people. The fact
>> > that it doesn't use a DB makes it easy to export/backup.
>> > JQuery uses mediawiki and their integration looks really nice.
>> > I don't want to push one specific software, we need people who are going to
>> > support the wiki setup and write content to choose.
>> > Hopefully, someone is going to write a Rails3 wiki and we'll be able to
>> > migrate smoothly later on.
>> > - Matt
>> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Chris Conrey <con...@chrisconrey.com>wrote:
>> >> And we have a winner. Content first - Platform a distant 2nd.
>> >> So now which non-ruby Wiki do we want to use?
>> >> DokuWiki, MediaWiki, Insitki?
>> >> Chris Conrey
>> >> chrisconrey.com
>> >> Human->Geek Relations at Integrum
>> >> @conrey on Twitter
>> >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Dave Newton <newton.d...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>> >>> Matt Aimonetti wrote:
>> >>> > Are you volunteering to write a Rails wiki? How long do you think it
>> >>> > will take to finish it so we can start working on it? What about
>> >>> > migration to Rails3 and on going support?
>> >>> <ObLurker>
>> >>> Writing an RoR wiki when the "deadline" for better wiki *content* is
>> >>> March (by my calculations < 2 mos) is a Really Bad Idea.
>> >>> Focus on content. *Then* focus on platform. Content migration is a far
>> >>> smaller (while still irritating) problem when compared to writing a
>> >>> full-featured wiki. Put a disclaimer in if you're really offended by
>> >>> running on a non-RoR wiki, or use a lame RoR wiki and suck it up until
>> >>> it's fixed or a new one exists.
