Some time ago, we started to suffer from spammers/load/etc against wiki.centos.org
We tried to implement various techniques , found on the moin wiki or elsewhere but we have to face it : moin (http://moinmo.in/), then underlying app for wiki.centos.org, is now unmaintained. Latest version (that we run) is python 2.7 compatible but no plan for python 3, etc, etc
For that reason, some SIGs (including Infra SIG), moved already their doc to markdown format, easy to write/review through PR and automatically rendered.
The question is so : do we want/need to keep wiki.centos.org running ? Most of the content (if not almost 99%) is outdated/unmaintained at this stage, and deciding what to do about content , and how/where to migrate it would make sense.
That's tied to an old infra ticket open a long time ago (https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/793) when we had to enabled mod_qos, and other workarounds to just try to keep it running and functional.
Let's start a thread/discussion !
@Shaun : as Docs leader, your voice/opinion/feedback would be greatly appreciated ;-)
The Markdown with static site generator FTW.
It's:
- It's easier to contribute - It's easier to review changes and maintain proper review process - It's easier to setup - Deployment/Automation is trivial
One of the problems that might arise is attachments, like images, YT links etc, and how to maintain them in a repo. But with proper documentation and rules, it's manageable.
Links like "edit this page" that takes you right into the repository and source are extremely developer friendly and encourage contributions even for small things.
The fact that anyone can build/recreate/check changes/experiment locally is also an important benefit.
Best, Alex
PS. I used my work e-mail, then tried to "unsent" and waited half-hour, so if this message goes twice on this mailing-list I'm sorry.
On 8/24/22 15:08, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Some time ago, we started to suffer from spammers/load/etc against wiki.centos.org
We tried to implement various techniques , found on the moin wiki or elsewhere but we have to face it : moin (http://moinmo.in/), then underlying app for wiki.centos.org, is now unmaintained. Latest version (that we run) is python 2.7 compatible but no plan for python 3, etc, etc
For that reason, some SIGs (including Infra SIG), moved already their doc to markdown format, easy to write/review through PR and automatically rendered.
The question is so : do we want/need to keep wiki.centos.org running ? Most of the content (if not almost 99%) is outdated/unmaintained at this stage, and deciding what to do about content , and how/where to migrate it would make sense.
That's tied to an old infra ticket open a long time ago (https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/793) when we had to enabled mod_qos, and other workarounds to just try to keep it running and functional.
Let's start a thread/discussion !
@Shaun : as Docs leader, your voice/opinion/feedback would be greatly appreciated ;-)
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Depending on how the pages are generated you should be able to do links and images no problem with Markdown. But yeah not having to update 2 locations would be nice as well as maintain 2 sites one of which is past EOL.
Amy
*Amy Marrich*
She/Her/Hers
Principal Technical Marketing Manager - Cloud Platforms
Red Hat, Inc https://www.redhat.com/
amy@redhat.com
Mobile: 954-818-0514
Slack: amarrich
IRC: spotz https://www.redhat.com/
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 8:57 AM aleksander.baranowski via CentOS-devel < centos-devel@centos.org> wrote:
The Markdown with static site generator FTW.
It's:
- It's easier to contribute
- It's easier to review changes and maintain proper review process
- It's easier to setup
- Deployment/Automation is trivial
One of the problems that might arise is attachments, like images, YT links etc, and how to maintain them in a repo. But with proper documentation and rules, it's manageable.
Links like "edit this page" that takes you right into the repository and source are extremely developer friendly and encourage contributions even for small things.
The fact that anyone can build/recreate/check changes/experiment locally is also an important benefit.
Best, Alex
PS. I used my work e-mail, then tried to "unsent" and waited half-hour, so if this message goes twice on this mailing-list I'm sorry.
On 8/24/22 15:08, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Some time ago, we started to suffer from spammers/load/etc against wiki.centos.org
We tried to implement various techniques , found on the moin wiki or elsewhere but we have to face it : moin (http://moinmo.in/), then underlying app for wiki.centos.org, is now unmaintained. Latest version (that we run) is python 2.7 compatible but no plan for python 3, etc, etc
For that reason, some SIGs (including Infra SIG), moved already their doc to markdown format, easy to write/review through PR and automatically rendered.
The question is so : do we want/need to keep wiki.centos.org running ? Most of the content (if not almost 99%) is outdated/unmaintained at this stage, and deciding what to do about content , and how/where to migrate it would make sense.
That's tied to an old infra ticket open a long time ago (https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/793) when we had to enabled mod_qos, and other workarounds to just try to keep it running and functional.
Let's start a thread/discussion !
@Shaun : as Docs leader, your voice/opinion/feedback would be greatly appreciated ;-)
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 9:08 AM Fabian Arrotin arrfab@centos.org wrote:
For that reason, some SIGs (including Infra SIG), moved already their doc to markdown format, easy to write/review through PR and automatically rendered.
I'd just like to throw out a vote for using a more powerful markup language such as asciidoc with better support for templating, linking, and overall a more robust experience when it comes to writing documentation.
For example we write our upstream documentation for STF in asciidoc ( https://github.com/infrawatch/documentation) and upon merge to the main branch, is auto-rendered ( https://github.com/infrawatch/documentation/blob/master/.github/workflows/ma...) and published into a static site ( https://infrawatch.github.io/documentation/).
I understand the desire for markdown since most people are generally able to guess the syntax, but for a little bit of extra effort asciidoc has been a really enjoyable experience from the extra power and rendering capabilities it provides (while maintaining the ability to review and preview content out of git both remote and locally).
Thanks Leif.
On Wed, 2022-08-24 at 15:08 +0200, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Let's start a thread/discussion !
+1 on decommissioning the wiki in sake of a "git + static web" model. The model behind https://docs.fedoraproject.org/ looks pretty neat to me.
+1 on consolidating tools we are already using (e.g., jekyll). This would allow us in the Artwork SIG to work one a single theme (e.g., the same used for www) that can be applied to all documentation sites, consistently. It doesn't have to be a huge all-in-one documentation site (which may slow down the rendering process whenever new changes enter the repo). Instead, we may consider individual sites for each specific purpose we want to have documentation for (per SIG or SIG- specific repo maybe).
About the attachments, they could be stored in the same repo where the related documentation is stored in. Then, we could activate git LFS for them.
Using GitLab to store documentation repos may be useful to reduce infra maintenance and also take advantage of runners already in place.
About using Asciidoc, I don't know if we need to make use of all the documentation features it provides (e.g., includes for reusing content, etc.). It seems like there is a strong preference to use Markdown for the simplicity it provides. However, if we want great documentation features, then Asciidoc has my absolute vote. It has documentation features that Markdown doesn't have or even expect to have.
On Wed, 2022-08-24 at 15:08 +0200, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
The question is so : do we want/need to keep wiki.centos.org running ? Most of the content (if not almost 99%) is outdated/unmaintained at this stage, and deciding what to do about content , and how/where to migrate it would make sense.
I'm strongly in favor of sunsetting the wiki and replacing it with static sites. From previous discussions, there's a few classes of documents currently on the wiki: - official/policy information: these could be moved to the main website (example: https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/CentOS8/UnshippedPackages) - events: these could be moved to static site under centos.org (e.g. events.centos.org or something like that); this is anything under https://wiki.centos.org/Events/ - SIG landing pages and docs: these could be moved to sigs.centos.org (anything under https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/) - misc tutorials, docs, FAQ, etc: these should probably be triaged first, but I'd be in favor of spinning up something like Fedora Quick Docs (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/) to host them
One thing that we should be mindful of preserving is internationalization; right now the wiki allows folks to contribute translations of any page into their local language, which is valuable both for the end users and as an avenue of contribution to the project. I'd really like to be able to preserve this in any new system we end up with.
Cheers Davide
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:08, Fabian Arrotin arrfab@centos.org wrote:
Some time ago, we started to suffer from spammers/load/etc against wiki.centos.org
We tried to implement various techniques , found on the moin wiki or elsewhere but we have to face it : moin (http://moinmo.in/), then underlying app for wiki.centos.org, is now unmaintained. Latest version (that we run) is python 2.7 compatible but no plan for python 3, etc, etc
For that reason, some SIGs (including Infra SIG), moved already their doc to markdown format, easy to write/review through PR and automatically rendered.
The question is so : do we want/need to keep wiki.centos.org running ? Most of the content (if not almost 99%) is outdated/unmaintained at this stage, and deciding what to do about content , and how/where to migrate it would make sense.
That's tied to an old infra ticket open a long time ago (https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/793) when we had to enabled mod_qos, and other workarounds to just try to keep it running and functional.
Let's start a thread/discussion !
@Shaun : as Docs leader, your voice/opinion/feedback would be greatly appreciated ;-)
I would recommend a markdown with a git backend to cover the differences in documentation. As much as I would like asciidoc, it tends to work only if you have a good docs group keeping track of changes and fixing when asciidoc decides your text was crap. If you have random fixes with people sending mr's which might get merged in ugly ways, markdown seems to handle that nicer. [mainly because it can't do all the cool things asciidoc allows for.]
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:13 PM Stephen Smoogen ssmoogen@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:08, Fabian Arrotin arrfab@centos.org wrote:
Some time ago, we started to suffer from spammers/load/etc against wiki.centos.org
We tried to implement various techniques , found on the moin wiki or elsewhere but we have to face it : moin (http://moinmo.in/), then underlying app for wiki.centos.org, is now unmaintained. Latest version (that we run) is python 2.7 compatible but no plan for python 3, etc, etc
For that reason, some SIGs (including Infra SIG), moved already their doc to markdown format, easy to write/review through PR and automatically rendered.
The question is so : do we want/need to keep wiki.centos.org running ? Most of the content (if not almost 99%) is outdated/unmaintained at this stage, and deciding what to do about content , and how/where to migrate it would make sense.
That's tied to an old infra ticket open a long time ago (https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/793) when we had to enabled mod_qos, and other workarounds to just try to keep it running and functional.
Let's start a thread/discussion !
@Shaun : as Docs leader, your voice/opinion/feedback would be greatly appreciated ;-)
I would recommend a markdown with a git backend to cover the differences in documentation. As much as I would like asciidoc, it tends to work only if you have a good docs group keeping track of changes and fixing when asciidoc decides your text was crap. If you have random fixes with people sending mr's which might get merged in ugly ways, markdown seems to handle that nicer. [mainly because it can't do all the cool things asciidoc allows for.]
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.
On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 09:46 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
I would recommend a markdown with a git backend to cover the differences in documentation. As much as I would like asciidoc, it tends to work only if you have a good docs group keeping track of changes and fixing when asciidoc decides your text was crap. If you have random fixes with people sending mr's which might get merged in ugly ways, markdown seems to handle that nicer. [mainly because it can't do all the cool things asciidoc allows for.]
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.
Having a consistent workflow across various things (Fedora docs, CentOS docs, SIG docs, and whatever content gets salvaged from the wiki) seems like an important goal, so that folks don't have to learn multiple ways of producing content, and contributrs can easily move from one to the other without getting confused.
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.
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
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.
Fabian - please can you give us stats for the top contributors so we can seek and appropriately weigh their opinions?
Thanks
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@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
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 11:32, Phil Perry pperry@elrepo.org 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.
Fabian - please can you give us stats for the top contributors so we can seek and appropriately weigh their opinions?
My main worry is that we are asking for their opinion of a sinking ship after the third torpedo has hit it. The current wiki runs due to a lot of hard work by Fabian and some others to keep it working. It is DOS'd daily, it is corrupted monthly, and it goes into strange lockdown modes regularly. You try to edit some pages in one editor and you can corrupt an entire section. Various people have hacked as many fixes as they can and Fabian has put in a LOT of off-hours work via 'ping' to fix other things for the last decade. Having worked with Fabian for a decade, him saying the wiki is dieing on an open list is a "The ship is sinking fast, I am going to keep trying to fix it until it goes, but you all might want to get on those lifeboats now." I realize that this isn't a new issue, people have been complaining about how fragile the CentOS wiki has been before Red Hat acquired the main team. However we have run out of street to kick the can down anymore.
I don't know about the other people's reasons for bringing up the git/markdown workflow but I did from my experience trying to keep the Fedora wiki from sinking these last 10 years also. The documentation community in Fedora and other areas are moving to git workflows with static pages. Many are just using github editor and readthedocs.io tools, and various CI/CD chains in github as their wiki replacements.
The main reason for this is that it breaks down the major way that spambots and dosbots kill wikis due to their using the same php/perl/python/etc to edit, render, and store pages. You overload one of those 3 and you kill the other two. Mediawiki and commercial wikis have a large amount of staff and hardware to try and make that less fragile. For sites without that, it has been easier to go to a slower method where edits are done in say github, sent through some sort of CI and then a pr made to merge by the master web doc person. That is then pushed to the various web servers for viewing. It is a lot slower but also less prone to SPAM/DOS problems.
In the end, one of the following is going to happen: 1. The CentOS wiki dies to the point where the only solution is a static rendering from backups of the last good wiki. 2. A team of people take over the moinmoin python code and start fixing CentOS issues. This is then wrapped with a new layer approach to deal with SPAM/DOS issues. 3. A team of people come up with a new architecture for a replacement wiki (be it twiki, mediawiki, etc) which is more resilient and upstream maintained for cve's etc. 4. A different method of documentation writing and editing is come up with and implemented. 5. Some other idea?
On 25/08/2022 17:10, 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
It seems I opened a "Pandora's box" last week before the weekend ... :-)
To keep a long story short, I just wanted to announce that something needs to be done, and also explaining publicly why wiki is misbehaving on regular basis (so that people don't have wrong expectations about wiki online service)
what I see so far for wiki.centos.org : - nothing is done and so it will just be deleted when centos 7 goes EOL in June 2024 (no, we'll not even consider having a c7 online past that EOL date) - centos-docs team is having a look at migrating content to another wiki (the sooner the better then), like mediawiki or else - or just consider moving to "static" sites (decision is up to people contributing content)
FWIW, actually it's possible to edit/contribute to SIG guide *without* having to learn the git workflow (like PR/MR, fork, commit, push, rebase, etc).
There is an "Edit this page" button/link on each page under https://sigs.centos.org/guide/ and it's just log you directly on git.centos.org (with SSO) to edit directly the page (if you have commit rights). It works also with github/gitlab
PS : we don't have to migrate it next week (even if I'd like to see current setup moved/migrated to something else soon) but just keeping in mind some EOL dates approaching and not waiting for last minute discussion ;-)
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:42 AM Fabian Arrotin arrfab@centos.org wrote:
On 25/08/2022 17:10, 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
It seems I opened a "Pandora's box" last week before the weekend ... :-)
To keep a long story short, I just wanted to announce that something needs to be done, and also explaining publicly why wiki is misbehaving on regular basis (so that people don't have wrong expectations about wiki online service)
what I see so far for wiki.centos.org :
- nothing is done and so it will just be deleted when centos 7 goes EOL
in June 2024 (no, we'll not even consider having a c7 online past that EOL date)
- centos-docs team is having a look at migrating content to another wiki
(the sooner the better then), like mediawiki or else
- or just consider moving to "static" sites (decision is up to people
contributing content)
FWIW, actually it's possible to edit/contribute to SIG guide *without* having to learn the git workflow (like PR/MR, fork, commit, push, rebase, etc).
There is an "Edit this page" button/link on each page under https://sigs.centos.org/guide/ and it's just log you directly on git.centos.org (with SSO) to edit directly the page (if you have commit rights). It works also with github/gitlab
PS : we don't have to migrate it next week (even if I'd like to see current setup moved/migrated to something else soon) but just keeping in mind some EOL dates approaching and not waiting for last minute discussion ;-)
-- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | twitter: @arrfab
Let's keep the centos-docs in the loop.
Akemi
-
Akemi Yagi -
Alain Reguera Delgado -
aleksander.baranowski -
Amy Marrich -
Davide Cavalca -
Fabian Arrotin -
Leif Madsen -
Neal Gompa -
Phil Perry -
Rich Bowen -
Robby Callicotte -
Stephen Smoogen -
Trevor Hemsley