Subject: Re: [boost] Moving wiki/Guidelines/WarningsGuidelines
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-02 09:16:51
On 2 August 2018 at 11:12, Paul A. Bristow via Boost
>> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Stefan Seefeld via Boost
>> On 2018-08-02 04:18 AM, Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:
>> > On 2 August 2018 at 10:09, Stefan Seefeld via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >> On 2018-08-02 03:59 AM, Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:
>> >>> Paul Bristow suggested 
>> >>> "We might also re-host this document somewhere on github/boostorg?"
>> >>>  https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2018/07/242617.php
>> >>> I'd like to edit and move the wiki page away from Trac.
>> >>> IMHO, it is reasonable to host it not on GitHub wiki but
>> >>> on boost.org along other guidelines, for example, at
>> >>> https://www.boost.org/development/warnings.html
>> >>> - It is easy to update website via pull requests.
>> >>> - Any updates would be a subject of some review at least
>> >>> Thoughts? Objections?
>> >> I don't think this is a good idea, as it contributes to the proliferation of
>> >> locations to look for to find information (or to contribute updates), which
>> >> will also result in duplicate (in the best case) or contradictory (in the
>> >> worst case) information.
>> > You've lost me.
>> > I'm suggesting *single* place to maintain all the common Boost development
>> > guidelines, namely boost.org.
>> >> Ideally, boost.org should consist of a *very* small
>> >> number of static pages (a hub, really) with links to other pages, such as
>> >> project-specific websites (e.g. http://boostorg.github.io/
>> > Clearly, we have a hierarchy of the recommendations here:
>> > - common guidelines
>> > - library-specific guidelines based on/extending the common ones
>> > I'm talking about common guidelines here, not the library-specific ones.
>> >> or the wiki (https://github.com/boostorg/boost/wiki).> Unsubscribe & other changes:
>> > I suggest to not to maintain common guidelines on GitHub wiki or
>> > anywhere else - Wiki is volatile,
>> > too easy to edit by too many or too easy to sneak unwanted edits.
>> I think it's a judgment call, really:
>> I see your point, and I agree: on the one hand we have
>> version-controlled (relatively static) content, on the other we have
>> easy-to-change volatile content.
>> If it were for truly static content, I would wholeheartedly agree with
>> you. But a document describing how to deal with (compiler-specific)
>> warnings is inherently a moving target, and thus will quickly get stale
>> unless it's been actively maintained (read: updated regularly). And if
>> it's hard to change, people will just add their own guidelines elsewhere...
> I agree that making it easy to change is really important, so while pull requests are OK,
> if there is a long delay in getting them accepted, it won't work well.
> (We have had trouble with spammers putting junk on Trac - for reasons incomprehensible. I fear Github wiki might become a magnet to
> these idiots So we really do need to have some filtering, but not so that it puts people off suggesting changes.)
>From my POV, the decision on Wiki vs boostorg/website is important
because it determines the output format: HTML or Markdown.
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk