Ok, great. In poking around a bit I see a lot of wiki pages being
properly marked as no longer relevant, with pointer to an appropriate page on the Inkscape website. So this all looks quite good.
Yes, they're well marked (I think thanks to Maren).
The approach of leaving them in place but link to the replacement page
in the website seems suitable. I wonder if there's a subtle way we could mark links on the top page of the wiki to indicate these kinds of pages.
The green "banner" seems to work ok. At least ok for me.
There's a fair bit of other extension-related information in the wiki
currently, beyond details on extensions themselves. But I suspect most of that can be folded into some of the other described sections. For instance, docs related to how to write extensions probably would be best housed in a developers' manual.
Yeah, I wouldn't want to lose those. We get so many questions in forums that I can't answer. "Developers' manual".....hhmm. Hhmm.... Almost said "hmmm" again. I guess I think of the entire wiki as being the developers' manual. Is someone actually working on such a thing? I haven't heard about it.
Would those wiki pages about how to write an extension be considered static? (i.e. going to the git wiki or docs dir?) They probably don't change a whole lot, but still sometimes, I guess.
I do need to go through and revamp it majorly, I haven't worked on it in
years and I'm sure it's completely inaccurate. And you're right it's of interest to everyone, it's not strictly just user-facing. But it is high profile and the range of people who need to edit it are relatively limited so for these reasons I think the website is a more appropriate home for it. Anyway, for now let's not worry about it. When I get around to updating it we can take another look at placement.
Well, someone's been updating the Roadmap. I remember looking at it before and after the first hackfest, and someone has kept it relatively current.
I could put on my to-do list, to move it to the website. But it could be several months before it makes it to the top. Let me know when you finish, and maybe it will be near the top of my list, by then.
All best, brynn
-----Original Message----- From: Bryce Harrington Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 11:39 AM To: brynn Cc: inkscape-devel@...6... Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] [RFC] Wiki replacement plan
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 04:24:39AM -0700, brynn wrote:
#2 - Strictly user-facing pages in the wiki are moved to the main
website. High level project info, roadmaps, user-oriented FAQs, community resources, and so on. If a page requires advanced styling or layout functionality in our current mediawiki, that would be a strong indication it should be moved to our Django. This will obviously take time and effort but can be tackled bit by bit. Most of this is worth translating. Finalized release notes will become part of the releases app; this will support html and translations.
I'm not as familiar with the wiki as Maren, but as far as I know #2 is almost completely finished.
Ok, great. In poking around a bit I see a lot of wiki pages being properly marked as no longer relevant, with pointer to an appropriate page on the Inkscape website. So this all looks quite good.
The only user-facing info still in the wiki, that I know of, is the Extension Repository page. It's kind of in limbo right now, because it's part of the project which Mark Schafer is working on, to get as many extensions as possible uploaded to InkSpaces/gallery (and he and Maren, and to a much lesser extent, me, are using the wiki for that).
Ok cool. I like that in the gallery that there is an example image or video for each extension. The descriptions look a bit more complete too.
There's a fair bit of other extension-related information in the wiki currently, beyond details on extensions themselves. But I suspect most of that can be folded into some of the other described sections. For instance, docs related to how to write extensions probably would be best housed in a developers' manual.
I'm not sure about Roadmaps being user-facing. But I guess there are some pages which are benficial to both sides (user/developer). But if it is user-facing, I don't think it's on the website yet. About putting it on the website, I'd worry it might generate complaints, unless it's strongly worded in the introduction about how it's set more in jello than stone.
I do need to go through and revamp it majorly, I haven't worked on it in years and I'm sure it's completely inaccurate. And you're right it's of interest to everyone, it's not strictly just user-facing. But it is high profile and the range of people who need to edit it are relatively limited so for these reasons I think the website is a more appropriate home for it. Anyway, for now let's not worry about it. When I get around to updating it we can take another look at placement.
Hhmm....I see those user-facing pages still have not been deleted! I deleted them once, after I put the info on the website (on Martin's ok) but they came back. Then we learned that there is some upper-level wiki editor which (or who?) doesn't allow pages to be deleted. But I thought we finally solved that, and had deleted them. I guess not.
The approach of leaving them in place but link to the replacement page in the website seems suitable. I wonder if there's a subtle way we could mark links on the top page of the wiki to indicate these kinds of pages.
(On the main wiki page, the User Documentation section, the link to "International and Local Communities" probably should link to the Community page on the website. Just like "Tutorials" links to the Learn page. Seems like I fixed that once before, myself....hhmm.)
Bryce
All best, brynn