smug is missing a "smug"

[Seth Humphries]

I have been following with much interest the development of Smug for
some time. I just checked out the smugweb google code page mentioned
previously by Andrew. I then went to other google code pages. While i
think the smugweb google code page is nice I realized that it is
missing a wiki, then it hit me -- There is no smug-wiki about Smug. Or
have I missed it? Andrew has some info up on Mcnabb.org but it is not
editable by end users as a smug. Is that something worth while? Is it
easily doable?

I know the user base is small at this point but as the number of
people using Smug grows this could be not only a selling point and
example but also a huge resource to users to get them up and running
quickly.

Seth

[Andrew McNabb]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 09:37:32PM -0600, Seth Humphries wrote:
>
> I have been following with much interest the development of Smug for
> some time. I just checked out the smugweb google code page mentioned
> previously by Andrew. I then went to other google code pages. While i
> think the smugweb google code page is nice I realized that it is
> missing a wiki, then it hit me -- There is no smug-wiki about Smug. Or
> have I missed it? Andrew has some info up on Mcnabb.org but it is not
> editable by end users as a smug. Is that something worth while? Is it
> easily doable?

That's what the "anonymous edits" is all about. It's high up on the
list of desired features (and it's actually more than half implemented).
Right now registered users can edit a Smug site like a wiki, but
anonymous (unregistered) users can't. The code is implemented which
lets anonymous users edit a page like a wiki and which creates a patch.
What's missing is the code for letting an admin review and apply the
patch.

> I know the user base is small at this point but as the number of
> people using Smug grows this could be not only a selling point and
> example but also a huge resource to users to get them up and running
> quickly.

Yeah, I totally agree with everything you're saying. I'd love to get
this set up, and it's just a matter of finding the time to implement it
all. If you have some free time, I'm happy to accept the help. :)

I think this is really the number 1 feature that we need.

--
Andrew McNabb
http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/
PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868

[Jeff Anderson]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:20:12PM -0600, Andrew McNabb wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 09:37:32PM -0600, Seth Humphries wrote:
> >
> > I have been following with much interest the development of Smug for
> > some time. I just checked out the smugweb google code page mentioned
> > previously by Andrew. I then went to other google code pages. While i
> > think the smugweb google code page is nice I realized that it is
> > missing a wiki, then it hit me -- There is no smug-wiki about Smug. Or
> > have I missed it? Andrew has some info up on Mcnabb.org but it is not
> > editable by end users as a smug. Is that something worth while? Is it
> > easily doable?
>
> That's what the "anonymous edits" is all about. It's high up on the
> list of desired features (and it's actually more than half implemented).
> Right now registered users can edit a Smug site like a wiki, but
> anonymous (unregistered) users can't. The code is implemented which
> lets anonymous users edit a page like a wiki and which creates a patch.
> What's missing is the code for letting an admin review and apply the
> patch.

I think that a general-purpose "smug" site for smug developers may be a
good idea. It's always nice to have a place to put stuff. Sometimes I
want to share something I've found or done, but it doesn't necessarily
belong in the main documentation.

A good example of something like this is my ReST/math setup that I got
working. I ended up making zero changes to smug, but would definitely be
a nice "recipe" to have out there on the web.

I'm definitely +1 for making a "smug" for developers now, and maybe even
grant accounts to individuals who would be "users" of smug. That said,
it is further from the model that smug was designed around, and closer
to a member-only wiki, but it may very well be appropriate in this case.

Jeff Anderson

[James Carroll]

actually, there is a bug somewhere, attempting to submit an anonymous
patch causes a crash.. so there is a bit more work to do on it than
just to create an easy way to apply the patches.

J

--
"And very early in the morning
the first day of the week,
they came unto the sepulchre
at the rising of the sun..." (Mark 16:2)

Web: http://james.jlcarroll.net

[Andrew McNabb]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 02:12:38PM -0600, Jeff Anderson wrote:
>
> I think that a general-purpose "smug" site for smug developers may be a
> good idea. It's always nice to have a place to put stuff. Sometimes I
> want to share something I've found or done, but it doesn't necessarily
> belong in the main documentation.
>
> A good example of something like this is my ReST/math setup that I got
> working. I ended up making zero changes to smug, but would definitely be
> a nice "recipe" to have out there on the web.

I think that this sort of stuff should definitely be in the main
documentation. It shouldn't be in the setup document, but it should
definitely be in the repository. The more documentation, the better.

> I'm definitely +1 for making a "smug" for developers now, and maybe even
> grant accounts to individuals who would be "users" of smug. That said,
> it is further from the model that smug was designed around, and closer
> to a member-only wiki, but it may very well be appropriate in this case.

I'll plan on eventually adding user accounts for developers, so that
they can contribute to the main smug site. And if someone wants to do
some web design work, I would be happy to split off the Smug page from
the rest of my site so that has more of a standalone feel. Just let me
know what your thoughts are, and help with the CSS.