1, 2 and 4 are maintained from (github) repository and 2 is maintained from forum users.
Did i get it right?
I think that's the proposal except the last number in the above statement should be 3 instead of 2, but I'm sure we all knew what you meant.
dequi wrote:Wow... that is really still all over the place
I somewhat agree but I don't think that is a huge problem because the source of the content for each is logical. The source of eventghost.net/wiki is the users publishing directly to that wiki, which makes sense. The source of the help file and user documentation is the documentation files contained in the EventGhost repository at _build/data/docs, which makes sense. If I understand correctly, the developer documentation is automatically generated from the docstrings in the EventGhost code.
The systems for the first two are already in place and working well so it really comes down to the developer documentation publishing system. Would there be a benefit to using the same system for publishing the user documentation and the developer documentation? If so, the logical first option to consider is to adapt the current documentation publishing system to be used for the developer documentation, which would mean publishing the developer documentation under eventghost.net/documentation. The alternative is to create a new system for publishing the developer documentation and then also use that system for publishing the user documentation.
kgschlosser stated somewhere that there is a build methodology to go from build to mediawiki implemented but not used.
well why not consolidate it all in an uniform way using namespaces
I think it's a reasonable proposal but it really hinges on the system of automatically generating MediaWiki markup and publishing to the wiki. If this proposal is to be pursued further I think we would need to know more about the existing system to determine whether it's ready to go, needs work, or must be created from scratch. It seems like the process of publishing the developer documentation to the GitHub wiki would be pretty straightforward because you can just use git push, the problem of generating GitHub Flavored Markdown from the docstrings remains but there is more likely to be an existing solution for this since Markdown is more common than whatever markup MediaWiki uses.
so anyone that wanted to spearhead translating or adding information in another language would be able to do this. now i do know that this is kind of an odd duck from a management stand point. because any of the core coders will need to have global write access to the docs. user/code/help but we need to keep things correct and there should be only one "head" of the user/code/help
I don't understand how this would work. Couldn't it all be handled via pull requests, or are you talking about changes that need to be made to the website backend?
pearbear does have a good knowledge of programming and an excellent knowledge of documentation I would still like to see him take on this challenge.
I'd need to have more details on this. It might be beyond my abilities/free time. I'm certainly interested in working on documentation. I don't claim to have special skills in writing/editing documentation other than that I'm actually willing to do it (which many programmers are not) and I'm a native English speaker, which makes it a bit easier for me than for someone who speaks English as a second language.
I know that @topik2k has been overwhelmed with real life work. and I do know this happens to all of us. and we do not want to intrude on that. everyone has a life beyond EG and has families to take care of and moneys to be made. So if you need to slow down with work on EG then simply let us know. this way we don't want to bother ya. Family and providing for them is always first and foremost and I think that we can all agree on that. life will go on in EG land and you will not be left behind. What would also help is if you possibly left one person in charge of communication with ya. this way you know that if that person asks something it is going to be something important so you won't get beat up with menial things.
I agree, we're all volunteers and I'm very grateful for whatever time anyone is able to contribute. I do feel that there should be an obligation for people to make it clear their level of commitment to the project and take the time to communicate when that changes. For my part:
- I was made one of the admins of the wiki usergroup. I commit to handling any requests to join that group within 24 hours. If I am taking longer than that people are welcome to send me a PM.
- I am committed to monitoring all changes to the MediaWiki and reverting any spam or vandalism and removing the user from the wiki usergroup if necessary. If I overlook anything people are welcome to send me a PM.
- I am committed to migrating the tutorials from the forum to the wiki. I've just been waiting for the dust to settle a bit to make sure we're all on the same page with the wiki.
I think we need to come up with a better means of communication outside of the forum
I prefer to keep discussion public whenever possible. I think the forum and GitHub comment threads should be sufficient. There is also a "Talk" page for every MediaWiki page. The exception would be any security sensitive information.
If at any point you are getting burnt out on EG.. then guess what that means. you have not spent enough time interacting with the users.
It goes both ways for me. I can get seriously burned out dealing with people on the Arduino forum and Stack Exchange every day. Then I need to back off and commit some code or report some bugs. The EventGhost forum has a higher quality of threads than the Arduino forum so it's not such a problem here. But I agree that it's a wonderful feeling when you can help someone get past a problem they've been struggling with. It's also very important to be able to see things from the user's viewpoint, especially new users. If you never interact with them then you lose sight of that.