* [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan
@ 2017-09-11 17:08 Michał Górny
2017-09-11 17:29 ` Michael Orlitzky
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2017-09-11 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Hi,
TL;DR: I'd like to reinstate the old-school GLEPs in .rst files rather
than Wiki, put in a nice git repo.
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/628098
A short bit of history
======================
A long time ago, in a gal... oh wait. Back in the old good days GLEPs
were reStructuredText files stored in our CVS repo (along with the GLEP
project page). The idea closely resembles the one used for PEPs
in Python. Similarly to the Python project, we had a docutils plugin to
convert GLEPs into 'nice' HTML, and so on, and so on.
Then there was the wiki boom, and GLEPs were wikified as part of that.
This brings us to where we are now.
Problems with wiki
==================
I've already listed them in detail [1]. The most relevant points, copied
from the bug [2]:
> 1. Lack of proper review platform and merge capability. We end up
> reinventing the wheel poorly by copying articles and requesting review
> of that. Then GLEP editors move them back eating history and sometimes
> resulting in even worse failures like including a temporary subpage in
> GLEP namespace [a]. Getting a GLEP in place sometimes takes GLEP
> editors over *a month* during which time there is not even a clear
> indication that a GLEP has update pending.
>
> 2. The wiki form does not really fit GLEPs. Note that RFCs are plain
> text files. PEPs use reStructuredText which is also pretty close to
> plain text. MediaWiki GLEPs are only mildly readable as plain text,
> and sometimes end up referring to external templates or other
> materials. They are not stand-alone, and they are hard to copy to use
> outside the wiki.
>
> 3. MediaWiki is not very good at accessibility. It's not convenient
> for anything more complex than quick article edits, and it ends up
> being real PITA for people with disabilities [b].
>
> [...]
> [a]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:73/VerificationAlgo
> [b]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/01fc23841c98670b2419a8638f97ec0b
The target layout
=================
What I'd like to do is to restore the 'old school' file-based layout,
albeit in a bit more modern form. The idea is that GLEPs will be stored
as reStructuredText files in a dedicated git repository. The rendered
HTML versions will be available from our main site.
This simple solution will introduce a number of advantages:
a. the original source text of GLEPs will be once more readable,
and useful without the HTML rendering or external templates; for reviews
we wouldn't have to resort to a web browser,
b. everyone will be able to clone the GLEP repo and work on their
branches locally, then GLEP editors will be able to merge/cherry-pick
the changes to master without discarding history,
c. it will be possible to work on GLEPs without using a web browser or
having Internet access.
The masterplan
==============
The plan on introducing the changes follows:
1. Convert the old GLEP repository from CVS to git (done [3]),
2. Prepare www.g.o to render GLEPs (done [4]),
3. Convert the one GLEP that was written in GuideXML to reST,
4. Update GLEPs from wiki,
5. Update GLEP-1/2 for the new-old workflow,
6. Profit!
For steps 3 onwards I'd gladly accept some help. If someone wants to
help, please contact me and I'll help you get started. Otherwise, I will
just update them at my own pace, as time permits.
Any comments?
[1]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/bf6cdaeb6c9c689b32e1f0c55447ca5d
[2]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/628098
[3]:https://github.com/mgorny/glep-draft
[4]:https://github.com/mgorny/www-gentoo-org (gleps branch)
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-11 17:08 [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan Michał Górny @ 2017-09-11 17:29 ` Michael Orlitzky 2017-09-11 17:57 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand ` (3 more replies) 2017-09-12 3:26 ` Dean Stephens 2017-09-13 12:10 ` Michał Górny 2 siblings, 4 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Michael Orlitzky @ 2017-09-11 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 09/11/2017 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > TL;DR: I'd like to reinstate the old-school GLEPs in .rst files rather > than Wiki, put in a nice git repo. > I generally agree with you that wiki markup is terrible and that a text editor and a git repo is The Right Way to do things (with Jekyll or whatever to push it to the web). But in my experience, crappy and easy is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become the sole contributor, and otherwise-technical people just start emailing me their contributions (which decrease greatly in frequency). Will it be possible to build the GLEP rst files locally, and view the output exactly as it would appear on the website? I ask because, so long as you don't want to be able to preview the result, you can already write MediaWiki markup into a text file locally. The offline "live preview" ability is the killer feature of RST as I see it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-11 17:29 ` Michael Orlitzky @ 2017-09-11 17:57 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand 2017-09-11 18:16 ` Rich Freeman ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Kristian Fiskerstrand @ 2017-09-11 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev, Michael Orlitzky [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 977 bytes --] On 09/11/2017 07:29 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > I generally agree with you that wiki markup is terrible and that a text > editor and a git repo is The Right Way to do things (with Jekyll or > whatever to push it to the web). But in my experience, crappy and easy > is a better way to get people to contribute. I generally agree with this as well, but I don't like that we're shifting back and forth as much as we do, which is a further hindrance. At some point we just need to decide on something and go with it, whether that is Wiki, RST or LaTeX.. The accessibility issues of wiki review and editing is a reasonable argument, but we probably don't want to rush a change again. Maybe we should start by defining a set of criteria / RFP for how we would like the GLEP process to be and the format required? -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-11 17:29 ` Michael Orlitzky 2017-09-11 17:57 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand @ 2017-09-11 18:16 ` Rich Freeman 2017-09-11 18:26 ` Robin H. Johnson 2017-09-11 20:56 ` Michał Górny 3 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Rich Freeman @ 2017-09-11 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote: > > But in my experience, crappy and easy > is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki > documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become > the sole contributor, and otherwise-technical people just start emailing > me their contributions (which decrease greatly in frequency). > I'd tend to agree if people could actually edit stuff on the Wiki. The problem is that there is really no way to do the equivalent of a pull request or other review process on a Wiki. Either we open pages up, in which case we have to watch them for changes we don't want. Or we don't open them up, in which case suggesting patches is a royal pain. I've wanted to propose more significant changes to the handbook and it is hard to do because I can't just offer one big patch that people can comment on. I could start making little changes here and there but until they're all done it will be inconsistent, and it makes it harder to influence the overall direction. -- Rich ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-11 17:29 ` Michael Orlitzky 2017-09-11 17:57 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand 2017-09-11 18:16 ` Rich Freeman @ 2017-09-11 18:26 ` Robin H. Johnson 2017-09-11 20:56 ` Michał Górny 3 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Robin H. Johnson @ 2017-09-11 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1063 bytes --] On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 01:29:38PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Will it be possible to build the GLEP rst files locally, and view the > output exactly as it would appear on the website? I ask because, so long > as you don't want to be able to preview the result, you can already > write MediaWiki markup into a text file locally. The offline "live > preview" ability is the killer feature of RST as I see it. Yes, this capability existed in the old CVS repo, along with the glep.py tool that was part of dev-python/docutils. 'make' was sufficient to trigger the build. It would be nice to ensure that the HTML build process was still easily accessible. glep.py was a tiny wrapper for rst2html.py, which should be even easier to get working now, since it can take arguments rather than needing python overrides. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Asst. Treasurer E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136 [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1113 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-11 17:29 ` Michael Orlitzky ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2017-09-11 18:26 ` Robin H. Johnson @ 2017-09-11 20:56 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-11 21:06 ` Michał Górny ` (2 more replies) 3 siblings, 3 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2017-09-11 20:56 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 13∶29 -0400, użytkownik Michael Orlitzky napisał: > On 09/11/2017 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, > > > > TL;DR: I'd like to reinstate the old-school GLEPs in .rst files rather > > than Wiki, put in a nice git repo. > > > > I generally agree with you that wiki markup is terrible and that a text > editor and a git repo is The Right Way to do things (with Jekyll or > whatever to push it to the web). But in my experience, crappy and easy > is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki > documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become > the sole contributor, and otherwise-technical people just start emailing > me their contributions (which decrease greatly in frequency). Rich already answered this in detail, so I'll skip it. > Will it be possible to build the GLEP rst files locally, and view the > output exactly as it would appear on the website? I ask because, so long > as you don't want to be able to preview the result, you can already > write MediaWiki markup into a text file locally. The offline "live > preview" ability is the killer feature of RST as I see it. Of course yes. However, the exactness of result depends on how much effort you put into it. The 'easy way' is rst2html.py (dev-python/docutils). It will give you a rough rendering with a standard style, i.e. kinda ugly but enough to see if everything works as expected. You'll also see the preamble as big mumbo-jumbo on top. Then, there's glep.py (dev-python/docutils-glep) which adds preamble parsing, table of contents and some styling. AFAICS it needs a bit handiwork (copying a stylesheet to a relative directory) but it gives nice old-school rendering. Then, you can just take www.gentoo.org and run it locally. It takes a little more effort but jekyll is really trivial to set up and run locally. Then you see it exactly how it's gonna look on g.o. As a side note, we may also rename GLEPs to .rst. Then, GitHub will also provide out-of-the-box rendering of them. -- Best regards, Michał Górny ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-11 20:56 ` Michał Górny @ 2017-09-11 21:06 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-11 21:27 ` Michael Orlitzky 2017-09-12 2:59 ` R0b0t1 2017-09-12 7:07 ` Daniel Campbell 2 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2017-09-11 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 22∶56 +0200, użytkownik Michał Górny napisał: > W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 13∶29 -0400, użytkownik Michael > Orlitzky napisał: > > On 09/11/2017 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > TL;DR: I'd like to reinstate the old-school GLEPs in .rst files rather > > > than Wiki, put in a nice git repo. > > > > > > > I generally agree with you that wiki markup is terrible and that a text > > editor and a git repo is The Right Way to do things (with Jekyll or > > whatever to push it to the web). But in my experience, crappy and easy > > is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki > > documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become > > the sole contributor, and otherwise-technical people just start emailing > > me their contributions (which decrease greatly in frequency). > > Rich already answered this in detail, so I'll skip it. > > > Will it be possible to build the GLEP rst files locally, and view the > > output exactly as it would appear on the website? I ask because, so long > > as you don't want to be able to preview the result, you can already > > write MediaWiki markup into a text file locally. The offline "live > > preview" ability is the killer feature of RST as I see it. > > Of course yes. However, the exactness of result depends on how much > effort you put into it. > > The 'easy way' is rst2html.py (dev-python/docutils). It will give you > a rough rendering with a standard style, i.e. kinda ugly but enough to > see if everything works as expected. You'll also see the preamble as big > mumbo-jumbo on top. > > Then, there's glep.py (dev-python/docutils-glep) which adds preamble > parsing, table of contents and some styling. AFAICS it needs a bit > handiwork (copying a stylesheet to a relative directory) but it gives > nice old-school rendering. > > Then, you can just take www.gentoo.org and run it locally. It takes > a little more effort but jekyll is really trivial to set up and run > locally. Then you see it exactly how it's gonna look on g.o. > > As a side note, we may also rename GLEPs to .rst. Then, GitHub will also > provide out-of-the-box rendering of them. > Example of GitHub rendering: https://github.com/mgorny/glep-draft/blob/preamble-test/glep-0001.rst IMO this beats the preview/editing capabilities MediaWiki gave us. -- Best regards, Michał Górny ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-11 21:06 ` Michał Górny @ 2017-09-11 21:27 ` Michael Orlitzky 2017-09-12 13:50 ` Michał Górny 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Michael Orlitzky @ 2017-09-11 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 09/11/2017 05:06 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Example of GitHub rendering: > https://github.com/mgorny/glep-draft/blob/preamble-test/glep-0001.rst > > IMO this beats the preview/editing capabilities MediaWiki gave us. > If that's how we get an offline preview, I'm not sold =P I can run MediaWiki locally too, and keep the source in a git repo. Your other methods of getting a local preview don't sound significantly easier than that -- at least, not enough so to justify throwing everything out and starting all over again. It looks like we're just treading water here, but I can live with it either way. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-11 21:27 ` Michael Orlitzky @ 2017-09-12 13:50 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-12 13:57 ` Michael Orlitzky 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2017-09-12 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 17∶27 -0400, użytkownik Michael Orlitzky napisał: > On 09/11/2017 05:06 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Example of GitHub rendering: > > https://github.com/mgorny/glep-draft/blob/preamble-test/glep-0001.rst > > > > IMO this beats the preview/editing capabilities MediaWiki gave us. > > > > If that's how we get an offline preview, I'm not sold =P > > I can run MediaWiki locally too, and keep the source in a git repo. Can you set a MediaWiki instance with contents in less than 5 easy steps? (easy = typing a reasonably short command, not 'set a mysql server up') > Your > other methods of getting a local preview don't sound significantly > easier than that -- at least, not enough so to justify throwing > everything out and starting all over again. If you consider doing 'rst2html.py glep-0001.rst > glep-0001.html' hard, then I'm afraid I won't be able to ever satisfy you. -- Best regards, Michał Górny ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-12 13:50 ` Michał Górny @ 2017-09-12 13:57 ` Michael Orlitzky 2017-09-12 14:07 ` Michał Górny 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Michael Orlitzky @ 2017-09-12 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 09/12/2017 09:50 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > If you consider doing 'rst2html.py glep-0001.rst > glep-0001.html' hard, > then I'm afraid I won't be able to ever satisfy you. > Does that command produce something that looks as good as this? https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Mjo/GLEP:User_packages ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-12 13:57 ` Michael Orlitzky @ 2017-09-12 14:07 ` Michał Górny 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2017-09-12 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev W dniu wto, 12.09.2017 o godzinie 09∶57 -0400, użytkownik Michael Orlitzky napisał: > On 09/12/2017 09:50 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > If you consider doing 'rst2html.py glep-0001.rst > glep-0001.html' hard, > > then I'm afraid I won't be able to ever satisfy you. > > > > Does that command produce something that looks as good as this? > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Mjo/GLEP:User_packages > No, it doesn't. However, you are free to prepare a stylesheet for docutils that produces the rendering you like. -- Best regards, Michał Górny ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-11 20:56 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-11 21:06 ` Michał Górny @ 2017-09-12 2:59 ` R0b0t1 2017-09-12 14:04 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-12 7:07 ` Daniel Campbell 2 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: R0b0t1 @ 2017-09-12 2:59 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev Hello friends, On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 13∶29 -0400, użytkownik Michael > Orlitzky napisał: >> On 09/11/2017 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > TL;DR: I'd like to reinstate the old-school GLEPs in .rst files rather >> > than Wiki, put in a nice git repo. >> > >> >> I generally agree with you that wiki markup is terrible and that a text >> editor and a git repo is The Right Way to do things (with Jekyll or >> whatever to push it to the web). But in my experience, crappy and easy >> is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki >> documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become >> the sole contributor, and otherwise-technical people just start emailing >> me their contributions (which decrease greatly in frequency). > > [...] > > Then, you can just take www.gentoo.org and run it locally. It takes > a little more effort but jekyll is really trivial to set up and run > locally. Then you see it exactly how it's gonna look on g.o. > I previously suggested Gollum and think I should suggest it again. Gollum provides features relevant to a Wiki setting including web editing. It would not require pages be rewritten and can render MediaWiki that is maintained in a Git repository. It should be all of the positives with no negatives. Please refer to a statement by a project contributor and the original author: https://github.com/gollum/gollum/issues/712. Respectfully, R0b0t1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-12 2:59 ` R0b0t1 @ 2017-09-12 14:04 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-16 7:51 ` R0b0t1 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2017-09-12 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 21∶59 -0500, użytkownik R0b0t1 napisał: > Hello friends, > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > > W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 13∶29 -0400, użytkownik Michael > > Orlitzky napisał: > > > On 09/11/2017 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > TL;DR: I'd like to reinstate the old-school GLEPs in .rst files rather > > > > than Wiki, put in a nice git repo. > > > > > > > > > > I generally agree with you that wiki markup is terrible and that a text > > > editor and a git repo is The Right Way to do things (with Jekyll or > > > whatever to push it to the web). But in my experience, crappy and easy > > > is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki > > > documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become > > > the sole contributor, and otherwise-technical people just start emailing > > > me their contributions (which decrease greatly in frequency). > > > > [...] > > > > Then, you can just take www.gentoo.org and run it locally. It takes > > a little more effort but jekyll is really trivial to set up and run > > locally. Then you see it exactly how it's gonna look on g.o. > > I'm going to reply to the Gollum topic here since it's the first mail according to date. > I previously suggested Gollum and think I should suggest it again. > Gollum provides features relevant to a Wiki setting including web > editing. Firstly, a generic request to everyone. If you want to suggest that we are supposed to use your-favorite-tool instead of the one we have deployed for a few years now, then please include: 1. A short summary including: 1a. How it fits into the desired workflow. Topics such as access control and caching are of particular interest to me. 1b. What possible future use it could have. 1c. How much effort will the future maintenance take. 2. A publicly available working instance that resembles the workflow we're aiming for, or an easy way of setting one up. Easy = ~5 simple shell commands, not 'set a webserver up'. 3. A statement from an Infra member that is willing to set the instance up and maintain it. Because otherwise we're only going to lose time on theoretical debates over software without even knowing if it will work at all, do what it's supposed to do, and most importantly, if someone will actually set a production instance up and maintain it afterwards. Infra already maintains enough diverse platforms/services/frameworks that serve only a single tool selected by one person who used to like it, and not maintained anymore. SMW belongs to that group. > It would not require pages be rewritten and can render > MediaWiki that is maintained in a Git repository. Secondly, even if Gollum supported MW markup to the point of rendering GLEPs (which it doesn't [1]), MW markup is not suitable for any technical specifications or serious documentation for two reasons: a. MW markup is not proper WYWIWYG. Any more complex part of the document is not readable as plaintext. Add to that the horrible syntax requiring <nowiki> use mixed with inline HTML... b. MW markup is not standalone. Our GLEPs already started heavily depending on random templates (which can change at any time, breaking GLEPs in the process btw). > It should be all of the positives with no negatives. Is it? [1]:https://help.github.com/articles/supported-mediawiki-formats/ -- Best regards, Michał Górny ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-12 14:04 ` Michał Górny @ 2017-09-16 7:51 ` R0b0t1 2017-09-16 9:58 ` Michał Górny 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: R0b0t1 @ 2017-09-16 7:51 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev Hello, On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 21∶59 -0500, użytkownik R0b0t1 > napisał: >> Hello friends, >> >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 13∶29 -0400, użytkownik Michael >> > Orlitzky napisał: >> > > On 09/11/2017 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> > > > Hi, >> > > > >> > > > TL;DR: I'd like to reinstate the old-school GLEPs in .rst files rather >> > > > than Wiki, put in a nice git repo. >> > > > >> > > >> > > I generally agree with you that wiki markup is terrible and that a text >> > > editor and a git repo is The Right Way to do things (with Jekyll or >> > > whatever to push it to the web). But in my experience, crappy and easy >> > > is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki >> > > documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become >> > > the sole contributor, and otherwise-technical people just start emailing >> > > me their contributions (which decrease greatly in frequency). >> > >> > [...] >> > >> > Then, you can just take www.gentoo.org and run it locally. It takes >> > a little more effort but jekyll is really trivial to set up and run >> > locally. Then you see it exactly how it's gonna look on g.o. >> > > > I'm going to reply to the Gollum topic here since it's the first mail > according to date. > There is a thread in gentoo-dev where I proposed the Handbook be maintained with Gollum. I apologize if it was not visible, but I was trying to not make a nuisance of myself. >> I previously suggested Gollum and think I should suggest it again. >> Gollum provides features relevant to a Wiki setting including web >> editing. > > Firstly, a generic request to everyone. If you want to suggest that we > are supposed to use your-favorite-tool instead of the one we have > deployed for a few years now, then please include: > I believe I addressed all of these. Please make suggestions on my writing so I can make it more readable if you have the time. If I suggest a project I think it reasonable to expect you to refer to that project's README. Here is a link: https://github.com/gollum/gollum/blob/master/README.md. > 1. A short summary including: > > 1a. How it fits into the desired workflow. Topics such as access control > and caching are of particular interest to me. > It manages a Wiki using a Git repository. Access control is managed through the Git repository and has Git's limitations. When using Gollum it seems like access control is best done by creating repositories. The web editor seems to lack authentication. Gollum may have issues with caching[1]. Gollum is deployed by GitHub, but most GitHub project Wikis may be small. > 1b. What possible future use it could have. > It could maintain all public facing documents. > 1c. How much effort will the future maintenance take. > I do not see how it would take more maintenance time than Jekyll. It may take less as it offers Wiki specific features. > 2. A publicly available working instance that resembles the workflow > we're aiming for, or an easy way of setting one up. Easy = ~5 simple > shell commands, not 'set a webserver up'. > The README offers concise instructions for setting up a demonstration instance and scaling up. Should that be hard to read, a video is available (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EauxgxsLDC4). > 3. A statement from an Infra member that is willing to set the instance > up and maintain it. > It seems like it is your burden to interpret the suggestion and refer it to the people who would be maintaining it. If you don't want to then that is fine. > Because otherwise we're only going to lose time on theoretical debates > over software without even knowing if it will work at all, do what it's > supposed to do, and most importantly, if someone will actually set > a production instance up and maintain it afterwards. > It is not possible for me to know everything you would like addressed in advance. Most of the problems Gentoo faces are unique enough that I do not think it is reasonable to expect a useful solution to exist. There will always be problems. > Infra already maintains enough diverse platforms/services/frameworks > that serve only a single tool selected by one person who used to like > it, and not maintained anymore. SMW belongs to that group. > >> It would not require pages be rewritten and can render >> MediaWiki that is maintained in a Git repository. > > Secondly, even if Gollum supported MW markup to the point of rendering > GLEPs (which it doesn't [1]), MW markup is not suitable for any > technical specifications or serious documentation for two reasons: > > a. MW markup is not proper WYWIWYG. Any more complex part of > the document is not readable as plaintext. Add to that the horrible > syntax requiring <nowiki> use mixed with inline HTML... > > b. MW markup is not standalone. Our GLEPs already started heavily > depending on random templates (which can change at any time, breaking > GLEPs in the process btw). > Yes, I suppose the lack of templates might make it unusable. I never meant to defend MW. It just might have been possible to avoid rewriting many of the pages until absolutely necessary. >> It should be all of the positives with no negatives. > > Is it? > I don't know. You are the one with more information than me. I only stated as much because it genuinely seems like it is; follow up on my suggestion if it looks like it may initially be suitable. Even large problems like the lack of real authentication do not really make the situation any worse than it already is with controlled Wiki pages. For more restricted pages it is likely irrelevant. There was quite a bit of research involved in my original suggestion of Gollum, however I didn't think to look at some of the points you brought up. It looks like it might not be suitable. It also looks like there may not be anything "suitable," really, though static website generation may be the least intrusive. Respectfully, R0b0t1 [1]: https://github.com/gollum/gollum/issues/1078 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-16 7:51 ` R0b0t1 @ 2017-09-16 9:58 ` Michał Górny 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2017-09-16 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev W dniu sob, 16.09.2017 o godzinie 02∶51 -0500, użytkownik R0b0t1 napisał: > Hello, > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > > W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 21∶59 -0500, użytkownik R0b0t1 > > napisał: > > > Hello friends, > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 13∶29 -0400, użytkownik Michael > > > > Orlitzky napisał: > > > > > On 09/11/2017 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > TL;DR: I'd like to reinstate the old-school GLEPs in .rst files rather > > > > > > than Wiki, put in a nice git repo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I generally agree with you that wiki markup is terrible and that a text > > > > > editor and a git repo is The Right Way to do things (with Jekyll or > > > > > whatever to push it to the web). But in my experience, crappy and easy > > > > > is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki > > > > > documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become > > > > > the sole contributor, and otherwise-technical people just start emailing > > > > > me their contributions (which decrease greatly in frequency). > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Then, you can just take www.gentoo.org and run it locally. It takes > > > > a little more effort but jekyll is really trivial to set up and run > > > > locally. Then you see it exactly how it's gonna look on g.o. > > > > > > > > I'm going to reply to the Gollum topic here since it's the first mail > > according to date. > > > > There is a thread in gentoo-dev where I proposed the Handbook be > maintained with Gollum. I apologize if it was not visible, but I was > trying to not make a nuisance of myself. > > > > I previously suggested Gollum and think I should suggest it again. > > > Gollum provides features relevant to a Wiki setting including web > > > editing. > > > > Firstly, a generic request to everyone. If you want to suggest that we > > are supposed to use your-favorite-tool instead of the one we have > > deployed for a few years now, then please include: > > > > I believe I addressed all of these. Please make suggestions on my > writing so I can make it more readable if you have the time. > > If I suggest a project I think it reasonable to expect you to refer to > that project's README. Here is a link: > https://github.com/gollum/gollum/blob/master/README.md. > > > 1. A short summary including: > > > > 1a. How it fits into the desired workflow. Topics such as access control > > and caching are of particular interest to me. > > > > It manages a Wiki using a Git repository. Access control is managed > through the Git repository and has Git's limitations. When using > Gollum it seems like access control is best done by creating > repositories. The web editor seems to lack authentication. That's what I suspected. So you're talking about deploying a wiki without the basic feature of a wiki. IOW, once again deploying a tool more complex than necessary, and working it around to make it work for our purpose. > Gollum may have issues with caching[1]. Gollum is deployed by GitHub, > but most GitHub project Wikis may be small. That's not an answer. Generating all GLEPs takes around 60 seconds right now. With jekyll, that's done once. If gollum regenerates them frequently, it's not a feasible solution. > > 1b. What possible future use it could have. > > > > It could maintain all public facing documents. > > > 1c. How much effort will the future maintenance take. > > > > I do not see how it would take more maintenance time than Jekyll. It > may take less as it offers Wiki specific features. There's a major difference between maintaining one tool we know, and two tools (because obviously we won't dump Jekyll instantly), the second one we don't know anything about. > > 2. A publicly available working instance that resembles the workflow > > we're aiming for, or an easy way of setting one up. Easy = ~5 simple > > shell commands, not 'set a webserver up'. > > > > The README offers concise instructions for setting up a demonstration > instance and scaling up. Should that be hard to read, a video is > available (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EauxgxsLDC4). That's not what I'm asking for. If it's that easy, then set it up. What I want is a 'one click' solution that can get me running it without major changes to my system, without effort on my end and in, say, less than 5 minutes. -- Best regards, Michał Górny ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-11 20:56 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-11 21:06 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-12 2:59 ` R0b0t1 @ 2017-09-12 7:07 ` Daniel Campbell 2017-09-12 14:12 ` Michał Górny 2 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Daniel Campbell @ 2017-09-12 7:07 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4323 bytes --] On 09/11/2017 01:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 13∶29 -0400, użytkownik Michael > Orlitzky napisał: >> On 09/11/2017 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> TL;DR: I'd like to reinstate the old-school GLEPs in .rst files rather >>> than Wiki, put in a nice git repo. >>> >> >> I generally agree with you that wiki markup is terrible and that a text >> editor and a git repo is The Right Way to do things (with Jekyll or >> whatever to push it to the web). But in my experience, crappy and easy >> is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki >> documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become >> the sole contributor, and otherwise-technical people just start emailing >> me their contributions (which decrease greatly in frequency). > > Rich already answered this in detail, so I'll skip it. > >> Will it be possible to build the GLEP rst files locally, and view the >> output exactly as it would appear on the website? I ask because, so long >> as you don't want to be able to preview the result, you can already >> write MediaWiki markup into a text file locally. The offline "live >> preview" ability is the killer feature of RST as I see it. > > Of course yes. However, the exactness of result depends on how much > effort you put into it. > > The 'easy way' is rst2html.py (dev-python/docutils). It will give you > a rough rendering with a standard style, i.e. kinda ugly but enough to > see if everything works as expected. You'll also see the preamble as big > mumbo-jumbo on top. > > Then, there's glep.py (dev-python/docutils-glep) which adds preamble > parsing, table of contents and some styling. AFAICS it needs a bit > handiwork (copying a stylesheet to a relative directory) but it gives > nice old-school rendering. > > Then, you can just take www.gentoo.org and run it locally. It takes > a little more effort but jekyll is really trivial to set up and run > locally. Then you see it exactly how it's gonna look on g.o. > > As a side note, we may also rename GLEPs to .rst. Then, GitHub will also > provide out-of-the-box rendering of them. > To preface, I really like the idea to do this in Git. Much as I appreciate what the wiki team has done, collaboration isn't quite as smooth on it and as another person mentioned, it's hard to get reviews, so you get to choose to leave something in your userspace (I liked your Drafts namespace idea, fwiw) or edit a page anyway and hope for the best. That said... Is it wise to rely on Ruby (via Jekyll) for critical reference documents, given how often minor version bumps in Ruby disrupt its ecosystem? Do we really need the entire www.gentoo.org repository in order to view and hack on GLEPs? I see little reason for GLEPs to not be in their own repository, depending on something more stable than Jekyll and Ruby. Given that the doc tools themselves are written in Python, it makes more sense (imo) to leverage Gentoo's existing technical investment in Python and use something like app-text/pelican, which is equally, if not more capable than Jekyll and will not require pulling in Ruby just to hack on and preview some text. Every Gentoo system comes with Python unless you go off the beaten path and know what you're doing, so that's a bonus, too. Of course, this changes if we need some extremely advanced behavior. I'm not sure how easy it is to build a Pelican plugin, but there's an entire repo full of them. [1] Pelican also uses a Makefile you can hack on (even multiple publishing targets), and supports GNU gettext for translations. Or is Jekyll chosen purely because the current website is built with it? In that case, it at least makes sense despite the heavyweight dependencies. If anyone's interested in seeing a mockup of a few GLEPs in Pelican, I can get that started. Whether or not the structure works on GitHub is orthogonal to the decision. Still, put me down in favor of switching to Git. Thanks for putting together the proposal. [1]: https://github.com/getpelican/pelican-plugins -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer, Trustee, Treasurer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-12 7:07 ` Daniel Campbell @ 2017-09-12 14:12 ` Michał Górny 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2017-09-12 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev W dniu wto, 12.09.2017 o godzinie 00∶07 -0700, użytkownik Daniel Campbell napisał: > On 09/11/2017 01:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 13∶29 -0400, użytkownik Michael > > Orlitzky napisał: > > > On 09/11/2017 01:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > TL;DR: I'd like to reinstate the old-school GLEPs in .rst files rather > > > > than Wiki, put in a nice git repo. > > > > > > > > > > I generally agree with you that wiki markup is terrible and that a text > > > editor and a git repo is The Right Way to do things (with Jekyll or > > > whatever to push it to the web). But in my experience, crappy and easy > > > is a better way to get people to contribute. When I've taken wiki > > > documents and moved them into git repos, more often than not I become > > > the sole contributor, and otherwise-technical people just start emailing > > > me their contributions (which decrease greatly in frequency). > > > > Rich already answered this in detail, so I'll skip it. > > > > > Will it be possible to build the GLEP rst files locally, and view the > > > output exactly as it would appear on the website? I ask because, so long > > > as you don't want to be able to preview the result, you can already > > > write MediaWiki markup into a text file locally. The offline "live > > > preview" ability is the killer feature of RST as I see it. > > > > Of course yes. However, the exactness of result depends on how much > > effort you put into it. > > > > The 'easy way' is rst2html.py (dev-python/docutils). It will give you > > a rough rendering with a standard style, i.e. kinda ugly but enough to > > see if everything works as expected. You'll also see the preamble as big > > mumbo-jumbo on top. > > > > Then, there's glep.py (dev-python/docutils-glep) which adds preamble > > parsing, table of contents and some styling. AFAICS it needs a bit > > handiwork (copying a stylesheet to a relative directory) but it gives > > nice old-school rendering. > > > > Then, you can just take www.gentoo.org and run it locally. It takes > > a little more effort but jekyll is really trivial to set up and run > > locally. Then you see it exactly how it's gonna look on g.o. > > > > As a side note, we may also rename GLEPs to .rst. Then, GitHub will also > > provide out-of-the-box rendering of them. > > > > To preface, I really like the idea to do this in Git. Much as I > appreciate what the wiki team has done, collaboration isn't quite as > smooth on it and as another person mentioned, it's hard to get reviews, > so you get to choose to leave something in your userspace (I liked your > Drafts namespace idea, fwiw) or edit a page anyway and hope for the best. > > That said... Is it wise to rely on Ruby (via Jekyll) for critical > reference documents, given how often minor version bumps in Ruby disrupt > its ecosystem? The point of using ReST (i.e. an established markup) and git (established VCS) is to avoid depending on any particular software to get things working, and to make it easy to replace the guts as necessary. Jekyll is what infra uses at the moment, so I see no reason to reinvent the wheel just to prove the point. > Do we really need the entire www.gentoo.org repository in > order to view and hack on GLEPs? No, you don't. > I see little reason for GLEPs to not be > in their own repository, depending on something more stable than Jekyll > and Ruby. They are, and they don't depend on Ruby at all. In fact, you can view them using a line printer if you like. > Given that the doc tools themselves are written in Python, it > makes more sense (imo) to leverage Gentoo's existing technical > investment in Python and use something like app-text/pelican, which is > equally, if not more capable than Jekyll and will not require pulling in > Ruby just to hack on and preview some text. Every Gentoo system comes > with Python unless you go off the beaten path and know what you're > doing, so that's a bonus, too. See the first part of my reply to R0b0t1. > Of course, this changes if we need some extremely advanced behavior. I'm > not sure how easy it is to build a Pelican plugin, but there's an entire > repo full of them. [1] Pelican also uses a Makefile you can hack on > (even multiple publishing targets), and supports GNU gettext for > translations. > > Or is Jekyll chosen purely because the current website is built with it? > In that case, it at least makes sense despite the heavyweight dependencies. That's exactly the point. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious from what I have written. > If anyone's interested in seeing a mockup of a few GLEPs in Pelican, I > can get that started. You sure can. However, I have serious doubts about the value of establishing yet another framework for a single thing that nobody will afterwards use or maintain. See SMW. > > Whether or not the structure works on GitHub is orthogonal to the > decision. Still, put me down in favor of switching to Git. Thanks for > putting together the proposal. > > [1]: https://github.com/getpelican/pelican-plugins -- Best regards, Michał Górny ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-11 17:08 [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan Michał Górny 2017-09-11 17:29 ` Michael Orlitzky @ 2017-09-12 3:26 ` Dean Stephens 2017-09-12 14:13 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-13 12:10 ` Michał Górny 2 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Dean Stephens @ 2017-09-12 3:26 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 09/11/17 13:08, Michał Górny wrote: > Any comments? > Instead of spreading documentation back out across multiple sites and changing workflow for a subset of it yet again, why not migrate the wiki to e.g. gollum [1]? Given that it supports markdown, ReStructuredText, and mediawiki markup and uses git for a backend. [1] https://github.com/gollum/gollum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-12 3:26 ` Dean Stephens @ 2017-09-12 14:13 ` Michał Górny 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2017-09-12 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 23∶26 -0400, użytkownik Dean Stephens napisał: > On 09/11/17 13:08, Michał Górny wrote: > > Any comments? > > > > Instead of spreading documentation back out across multiple sites and > changing workflow for a subset of it yet again, why not migrate the wiki > to e.g. gollum [1]? Given that it supports markdown, ReStructuredText, > and mediawiki markup and uses git for a backend. > > [1] https://github.com/gollum/gollum > This seems to be entirely covered by an earlier post by R0b0t1, so please read my reply to that post. -- Best regards, Michał Górny ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan 2017-09-11 17:08 [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan Michał Górny 2017-09-11 17:29 ` Michael Orlitzky 2017-09-12 3:26 ` Dean Stephens @ 2017-09-13 12:10 ` Michał Górny 2 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2017-09-13 12:10 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev W dniu pon, 11.09.2017 o godzinie 19∶08 +0200, użytkownik Michał Górny napisał: > The masterplan > ============== > > The plan on introducing the changes follows: > > 1. Convert the old GLEP repository from CVS to git (done [3]), > > 2. Prepare www.g.o to render GLEPs (done [4]), > > 3. Convert the one GLEP that was written in GuideXML to reST, > > 4. Update GLEPs from wiki, Update: those two points are done now, and open for comments/review on 'wiki-updates' branch. There's a PR for convenience [1], and Council confirmation request [2]. [1]:https://github.com/mgorny/glep-draft/pull/1 [2]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/630882 > > 5. Update GLEP-1/2 for the new-old workflow, > > 6. Profit! > > For steps 3 onwards I'd gladly accept some help. If someone wants to > help, please contact me and I'll help you get started. Otherwise, I will > just update them at my own pace, as time permits. > > > Any comments? > > [1]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/bf6cdaeb6c9c689b32e1f0c55447ca5d > [2]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/628098 > [3]:https://github.com/mgorny/glep-draft > [4]:https://github.com/mgorny/www-gentoo-org (gleps branch) > -- Best regards, Michał Górny ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-09-16 9:58 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-09-11 17:08 [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reinstating old-school GLEPs masterplan Michał Górny 2017-09-11 17:29 ` Michael Orlitzky 2017-09-11 17:57 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand 2017-09-11 18:16 ` Rich Freeman 2017-09-11 18:26 ` Robin H. Johnson 2017-09-11 20:56 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-11 21:06 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-11 21:27 ` Michael Orlitzky 2017-09-12 13:50 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-12 13:57 ` Michael Orlitzky 2017-09-12 14:07 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-12 2:59 ` R0b0t1 2017-09-12 14:04 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-16 7:51 ` R0b0t1 2017-09-16 9:58 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-12 7:07 ` Daniel Campbell 2017-09-12 14:12 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-12 3:26 ` Dean Stephens 2017-09-12 14:13 ` Michał Górny 2017-09-13 12:10 ` Michał Górny
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox