CentOS docs - Aug 2022 - [CentOS-devel] What to do with wiki.centos.org ? (let's discuss it)

On 25/08/2022 16:32, Phil Perry wrote:
> On 25/08/2022 16:10, Trevor Hemsley via CentOS-devel wrote:
>> On 25/08/2022 15:28, Robby Callicotte via CentOS-devel wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 8:46:18 AM CDT Neal Gompa wrote:
>>>> I second this. Our quick docs could use MkDocs like the SIG
stuff
>>>> does, and the RHELish stuff can use the Antora system the RHEL
docs
>>>> folks want to use.
>>> I agree with Neal here.? This seems to offer a good balance.? At
this
>>> point I
>>> would argue that the MR/PR nature of git is ubiquitous and is part
of
>>> everyone's workflow.
>>
>> So far I've seen lots of "yes, use this" type comments so
I'd like to
>> ask how this compares in user friendliness to the current wiki 
>> (assuming that you can get to it because the spammers are taking a 
>> rest). I've never used any of the alternatives that have been
proposed
>> so far. Are they wikis? Are they usable for a non-technical user? The 
>> wiki, you press a button and you can edit content directly and see 
>> what it will look like before you save it. You can link to other pages 
>> easily, you can format content how you want it easily, often just at 
>> the press of a button.
>>
>> None of what I've heard so far sounds even remotely as usable as
what
>> we have now.
>>
>> Trevor
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Git-type work flows, pull and merge requests may be second nature to 
> those working within Red Hat, or other developers, but they are not 
> familiar technologies to most non-technical, regular users.
> 
> The Wiki has served as a key point of entry for contributing to the 
> CentOS project for non-technical users for exactly the reasons Trevor 
> highlights. A user can easily read and follow the documentation 
> presented on the Wiki, and can easily update it to fix any errors they 
> may encounter at the press of a button. If we lose that ability then we 
> lose a valuable entry point for new contributors to the project.
> 
> And lets not forget - developers do not write (or maintain) web-based 
> documentation. That is the reason documentation sucks on most open 
> source projects - developers want to do cool stuff, not spend all their 
> time writing documentation. So lets not give too much weight to the 
> opinions of those who have never contributed anything to the Wiki.
> 
I think my point above is further highlighted by the fact this 
discussion is taking place on the centos-devel list, not the centos-docs 
list.
> Fabian - please can you give us stats for the top contributors so we can 
> seek and appropriately weigh their opinions?
> 
> Thanks
>

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 8:41 AM Phil Perry <pperry at elrepo.org>
wrote:
>
> On 25/08/2022 16:32, Phil Perry wrote:
> > On 25/08/2022 16:10, Trevor Hemsley via CentOS-devel wrote:
> >> On 25/08/2022 15:28, Robby Callicotte via CentOS-devel wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 8:46:18 AM CDT Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>>> I second this. Our quick docs could use MkDocs like the
SIG stuff
> >>>> does, and the RHELish stuff can use the Antora system the
RHEL docs
> >>>> folks want to use.
> >>> I agree with Neal here.  This seems to offer a good balance. 
At this
> >>> point I
> >>> would argue that the MR/PR nature of git is ubiquitous and is
part of
> >>> everyone's workflow.
> >>
> >> So far I've seen lots of "yes, use this" type
comments so I'd like to
> >> ask how this compares in user friendliness to the current wiki
> >> (assuming that you can get to it because the spammers are taking a
> >> rest). I've never used any of the alternatives that have been
proposed
> >> so far. Are they wikis? Are they usable for a non-technical user?
The
> >> wiki, you press a button and you can edit content directly and see
> >> what it will look like before you save it. You can link to other
pages
> >> easily, you can format content how you want it easily, often just
at
> >> the press of a button.
> >>
> >> None of what I've heard so far sounds even remotely as usable
as what
> >> we have now.
> >>
> >> Trevor
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Git-type work flows, pull and merge requests may be second nature to
> > those working within Red Hat, or other developers, but they are not
> > familiar technologies to most non-technical, regular users.
> >
> > The Wiki has served as a key point of entry for contributing to the
> > CentOS project for non-technical users for exactly the reasons Trevor
> > highlights. A user can easily read and follow the documentation
> > presented on the Wiki, and can easily update it to fix any errors they
> > may encounter at the press of a button. If we lose that ability then
we
> > lose a valuable entry point for new contributors to the project.
> >
> > And lets not forget - developers do not write (or maintain) web-based
> > documentation. That is the reason documentation sucks on most open
> > source projects - developers want to do cool stuff, not spend all
their
> > time writing documentation. So lets not give too much weight to the
> > opinions of those who have never contributed anything to the Wiki.
> >
>
> I think my point above is further highlighted by the fact this
> discussion is taking place on the centos-devel list, not the centos-docs
> list.
>
> > Fabian - please can you give us stats for the top contributors so we
can
> > seek and appropriately weigh their opinions?
I wholeheartedly agree with Trevor and Phil.

Here is the list of current and past contributors to the wiki:

https://wiki.centos.org/EditGroup

It's a long list from many years ( > 15 years ) of the wiki history.

Akemi