Skip to content

docs: curate wiki back into the repo #12449

Description

@refack
  • Subsystem: docs,guides

A little bit similar to the concept in http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6941688/how-to-integrate-a-github-wiki-into-the-main-project
We clone the current wiki into a new repo (maybe nodejs/core-wiki) and migrate the non-API docs and guides there. This will allow us the regular issue/PR workflow that would end in "landing" changes into https://github.com/nodejs/node/wiki (which is a git repo https://github.com/nodejs/node.wiki.git that would become write restricted).

Also I feel it's very important to have a clear table-of-content with pointers as to whom should read what (maybe also copied into /README.md)

Activity

  1. refack commented on Apr 16, 2017

    @refack
    ContributorAuthor

    spin off from #12436 (comment)

  2. added
    discussIssues opened for discussion and feedback.
    metaIssues and PRs related to the general management of the project.
    on Apr 16, 2017
  3. self-assigned this
    on Apr 16, 2017
  4. gibfahn commented on Apr 16, 2017

    @gibfahn
    Member

    I'd be -1 on this for the reasons in #12436 . Basically I don't see what you gain, and it makes things more complicated. I'd rather move the stuff in the wiki to doc/guides/website.

    Also I feel it's very important to have a clear table-of-content with pointers as to whom should read what (maybe also copied into /README.md)

    I think this should just be the README, which is where I think most people start.

    #6885 may be relevant.

  5. refack commented on Apr 16, 2017

    @refack
    ContributorAuthor

    You've read my opinions in the #12436 thread. I'm mainly pro-README-as-ToC, and a little bit of tidying up.

    I'm just asking you to give it second thought, whether it wouldn't be nicer, cleaner, and tidier to have the meta-documentation (and meta-meta discussion i.e. issues and PRs) in a separate space.

  6. refack commented on Apr 16, 2017

    @refack
    ContributorAuthor

    If we don't get consensus on a new repo, I'm also suggesting a small reorganization of files, and adding a guides tag for easy separation.

  7. joyeecheung commented on Apr 17, 2017

    @joyeecheung
    Member

    I think moving the wiki to somewhere managed by git would be better, no matter where it gets moved to.

    As for the guides, I am not sure, because for me they also serve as documentations of the codebase (i.e. why certain lines of code are written in a certain way, why the commit history looks in a certain way, how to use the internal API to do stuff), I am more used to seeing this kind of stuff in the codebase (so they would show up when I am searching the codebase for an explanation...)

  8. sam-github commented on Apr 17, 2017

    @sam-github
    Contributor

    If this was an actively used wiki with up-to-date content, I might agree, but as-is, I'm -1.

    I think a more useful approach would to survey the content of the wiki, and determine a reasonable disposition:

    • API Changes & Breaking changes: should in website repo so its on nodejs.org
    • async exception handling: should be deleted, its wrong
    • contributing: out of date, delete
    • deprecation: out of date, delete

    .... I don't have energy to go through this all, but so far, most of the stuff I've seen should be deleted or moved. I don't think there will be anything in it when this process is complete.

  9. changed the title [-]docs: move guides and wiki into their own repo[/-] [+]docs: curate wiki back into the repo[/+] on Apr 18, 2017
  10. refack commented on Apr 18, 2017

    @refack
    ContributorAuthor

    I did a 180.
    I'll follow @sam-github comment and make a PR.

  11. reopened this on Apr 27, 2017
  12. Trott commented on Aug 18, 2017

    @Trott
    Member

    Should this remain open?

  13. removed
    discussIssues opened for discussion and feedback.
    on Mar 11, 2018
  14. apapirovski commented on Apr 14, 2018

    @apapirovski
    Contributor

    This has been inactive for a year now. I'm going to close it out but feel free to reopen if you're intending to revisit this sometime soon or think this is well suited to the help wanted or good first issue labels.

  15. removed their assignment
    on Oct 12, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    metaIssues and PRs related to the general management of the project.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions