Tags:
create new tag
, view all tags

Please make a Doc Web

This seems to me to be a no-brainer. TWiki does not equal Doc to anyone not intimately involved in this project. TWikiDoc is perhaps a better name than just Doc, since many installations may want to create a Doc web for their specific use, although one can also argue that with appropriate classification and tools all doc can coexist happily in one web.

Discussion

This is a taxonomy question, and also a question how to build a good navigation model. Lynnwood and I discussed this at length, the result is at WhereToPutOfficialDocsMissingInDistro

-- PeterThoeny - 09 Mar 2006

Actually, I don't think Meredith was referring to a Doc web on TWiki.org. As I understand it, she wants a Doc web in the dirstribution; something which has been discussed at length before, and usually left hanging. I think in the light of recent experience, that this is an excellent idea, for a couple of reasons:

  1. It allows us to make a "read only" web out of the docs
  2. We can open TWiki web up for write again, so adding plugins topics there starts to make a lot more sense; it is a "configuration web"

A possible solution would be to add a %DOCWEB% variable, that at least at first just points to TWiki.

There was a bunch of discussion on this before; does anyone else remember where it was?

-- CrawfordCurrie - 19 Jun 2006

Actually, back when I created the topic I meant on twiki.org, because I didn't know anything about distributions. At this point I don't know all the ramifications of moving twiki.rg documentation in a new web (although in general twiki does a fine job of fixing up references), but for distribution purposes Crawford's points make a lot of sense.

-- MeredithLesly - 19 Jun 2006

It is a terrible mixup of settings and documentation today. I support the idea.

I reverted a SVN checkin for 4.0.3 today but not because I oppose the idea. On the contrary. The checkin was a preparation for the change and it should wait a few days until we have 4.0.3 out of the door.

Once 4.0.3 is out - given the current stability - we can focus on 4.1

We should bring this up at the first #twiki_edinburg meeting that comes up.

Meredith. Can you elaborate on this topic how you see the steps towards the implementation?

-- KennethLavrsen - 23 Jun 2006

Given the strong consistent resistance to creating a documentation web, I'm long past being interested solving the numerous problems. There was no need to wait until 4.1 to make a documentation web -- something that seems to have eluded you -- but I'm not going to play ping pong with the checkin, despite the fact that CDot and I discussed how to allow for a separate doc web in the safest possible way in #twiki before he posted it in this topic. It's a shame that valuable resources are wasted answering the same questions over and over again, not to mention that the state of the documentation is undoubtedly playing a role in sites not upgrading, but it's everyone's individual choice whether to waste their time and energy on this. I've already made my choice: I'll contribute in the areas where I'm allowed to and stay away from the rest.

On the bright side for some, however, there's a great business opportunity in helping companies upgrade their sites, given the many difficulties involved.

-- MeredithLesly - 24 Jun 2006

Adding a doc web is considered a feature, not a bug fix (though opinions may vary). And for 4.0.3 we do bugs only.

-- ArthurClemens - 24 Jun 2006

Arthur, there was no new web, nor was there any intention of creating one for the 4.0.3 release. The onlly change was to add a variable that would allow documentation topics to be edited to use DOCWEB instead of TWIKIWEB. In the trivial change made to TWikiPreferences, the variable DOCWEB was introduced and, of course, set to TWiki so that there would be no impact. Once a documentation web was available as (I guess) a doc package, people would have the option of using it by downloading it and overriding DOCWEB to point to it instead of TWiki.

Perhaps CDot chose the wrong topic in which to suggest this trival change, which presumably is why you thought there was a more major change than there was, so I'm sorry if it caused you any confusion or concern. Kenneth, however, knew exactly what the checkin encompassed and arbitarily decided to revert it anyway. More specifically, I explained that CDot and I had discussed in #twiki how to go about adding DOCWEB to 4.0.3 in a way that would have no impact, and that CDot thought that adding the variable (with the obvious value of TWiki to TWikiPreferences was the safest way to go. Kenneth's response was "Fuck CDot" and said that if I didn't revert it he would.

-- MeredithLesly - 24 Jun 2006

By the way, I uploaded a presentation on TWiki application development that I had given to our internal audience. If people think that it is useful, please correct/move/rename/link as apppropriate.

I thought I'd mention it here. Thanks.

-- PankajPant - 24 Jun 2006

This is great, Pankaj!

-- ArthurClemens - 25 Jun 2006

Good work, we could use something like this.

-- JasonHill - 25 Jun 2006

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r12 < r11 < r10 < r9 < r8 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r12 - 2006-06-25 - JasonHill
 
  • Learn about TWiki  
  • Download TWiki
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by Perl Hosted by OICcam.com Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback. Ask community in the support forum.
Copyright © 1999-2017 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.