GitHub MD wiki -> TiddlyWiki?

[Jack Armitage]

Hello,

I am part of a project that currently uses a GitHub wiki as it's main source of documentation (https://github.com/belaplatform/bela/wiki).

Since it is based on Markdown, is it possible to automagically turn it into a TiddlyWiki? Further, would it be possible to upstream updates from the GitHub wiki?

Thanks,

Jack

[Devin Weaver]

This sounds more difficult then you probably wish. You would need a script to convert the markdown files to tid files. You would have to add the markdown plugin to the tiddlywiki.info and then build. TiddlyWiki is pretty much a single page HTML file so updates would need to be managed via webhooks on a build system and the changes would be one way only which means any edits on the tiddlywiki side would not be reflected on the github wiki side.

Just think off the top of my head. It has been my experience that if your team is already failure with GH wiki that attempting to on board them to TW is a huge step. I've found that those who find TW on their own fall in love with it. Those who are given TW from others get agitated and scornful. But I could just be a pessimist.

[Jeremy Ruston]

The core TiddlyWiki 5 plugin library includes one that adds support for Markdown tiddlers. It uses “classic” Markdown, rather than GitHub Flavoured Markdown, but BJ has an alternative plugin that does support GFM:

http://bjtools.tiddlyspot.com/#MarKed

Under Node.js, you can easily process an entire directory of .md files into tiddlers. Create a folder within your wiki “tiddlers” folder containing a `tiddlywiki.files` file with something like:

{
"directories": [
{
"path": "./path/to/the/folder/containing/the/files",
"filesRegExp": "^.*\\.md$",
"isTiddlerFile": false,
"fields": {
"title": {"source": "filename"},
"created": {"source": "created"},
"modified": {"source": "modified"},
"type": "text/markdown",
}
}
]
}

See http://tiddlywiki.com/prerelease/#tiddlywiki.files%20Files

Best wishes

Jeremy.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/32fe3015-6bdf-4fca-a51f-ab279900890e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[PMario]

Hi Jack,

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 1:26:32 PM UTC+1, Jack Armitage wrote:

I am part of a project that currently uses a GitHub wiki as it's main source of documentation (https://github.com/belaplatform/bela/wiki).

Nice project! ... I had a short look at the code base. ... Your web based IDE is a node app. right? ...

So you should have the whole TW build infrastructure in place already. ...

TiddlyWiki can be automatically built with github web-hooks or life on the plattform if needed. There are 2 possibilities.

a) Single file TW, that is self-contained and can be viewed with every browser. ... NO server side needed. Everything runs on the client.

b) So called "static" site, that "compiles" your wiki into several *.html files, which can be easily served with a small express based node server. This solution would need a server-side, but has basically no CPU overhead, since the work is already done at "compile time". Since the resulting html files contain mainly text, they should be small. ..
 

Since it is based on Markdown, is it possible to automagically turn it into a TiddlyWiki?

As Jeremy pointed out. Relatively straight forward, but some tweaking needed. Since There are only 39 wiki pages atm. Manually transferring the stuff should be about 1h work. 

Configuring and optimizing the workflow, will be definitely more work.
 

Further, would it be possible to upstream updates from the GitHub wiki?

Yes. Should be straight forward too. ... It depends a little bit if you need a) or b) from above. ... But it should be doable.

have fun!
mario
PS: What does your community think about this change?

[Jeremy Ruston]

As Jeremy pointed out. Relatively straight forward, but some tweaking needed. Since There are only 39 wiki pages atm. Manually transferring the stuff should be about 1h work.  

It can be automated easily; GitHub wikis are stored as repositories behind the scenes (see https://help.github.com/articles/adding-and-editing-wiki-pages-locally/). So you can clone the wiki repo with:

git clone https://github.com/BelaPlatform/Bela.wiki.git

Best wishes

Jeremy.

[Jack Armitage]

Thanks for the replies everyone. It certainly seems doable!

@Pmario, we have not really proposed this as a definite change, and the wiki would still stay on GitHub at least for now. We are interested in options for having the wiki available in our environment though so TiddlyWiki could be a possibility for that. The benefit that I see is that each user could then edit this base wiki to make it their own and document their projects, and potentially contribute back to the main wiki.

Jack

[PMario]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 9:29:07 PM UTC+1, Jack Armitage wrote:

Thanks for the replies everyone. It certainly seems doable!

Yes.
 

@Pmario, we have not really proposed this as a definite change, and the wiki would still stay on GitHub at least for now. We are interested in options for having the wiki available in our environment though so TiddlyWiki could be a possibility for that.

That's a good thing to read. I just wanted to be sure, that there is some discussion going on.
 

The benefit that I see is that each user could then edit this base wiki to make it their own and document their projects, and potentially contribute back to the main wiki.

As I wrote, that should be possible too. ... But I'm not sure, how you would want to implement it. .. IMO for a "low latency" system, it's important, that only the stuff that's really needed is running. ... So the final workflow, will need to be discussed.

-mario

[Jack Armitage]

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 12:38:38 PM UTC, PMario wrote:

As I wrote, that should be possible too. ... But I'm not sure, how you would want to implement it. .. IMO for a "low latency" system, it's important, that only the stuff that's really needed is running. ... So the final workflow, will need to be discussed.

Absolutely, this would be a central consideration. It would be very useful to be able to comfortably edit and add media to the wiki whilst a real-time program is running!