Could Netlify CMS replace the EHR Mediawiki?

documentation

(Robby O'Connor) #1

I just heard of Netlify CMS at the GSoC Mentor Summit, and was wondering if that would remove the impediments and resistance to using GitHub/GitLab pages?

Should we re-open this discussion? If there is opposition, I will drop this.


(Harley Tuck) #2

I myself am not inclined to re-open this discussion; it’s been hashed out and seemed to have been resolved before, specifically in the documentation topic threads earlier in the year.


(Robby O'Connor) #3

I brought this up because it was something that I felt addressed the this CMS addressed pain points that were mentioned.


(Harley Tuck) #4

Hi Robby- To speak plainly: I have no pain points with the mediawiki LHEHR document repository; it works fine for me and it meets the mission requirements of LHEHR’s documentation repo. And at the moment I am the one who was selected by the greater LHEHR project to run the documentation effort. As soon as I am relieved of doing the tech writing and intern management work I am doing- with your prodigious help I gratefully add- you will be free to migrate that repo to any platform you wish. Until that time, as the old saying goes, “They that do the work choose the tools”. Best regards- HT


(Art Eaton) #5

Hi Harley,

  There isn't really any consternation here.  Robby just attended a few documentation thingies at the google summit, and I suggested that there was no harm in just setting up another system for folks to poke and prod at...with no mention of pushing anyone to actually give anything a whirl.  I actually talked to the MediaWiki folks when I was there (who would be good to gang up with) but we might also want to look at another collaboration product for creating context help, as well as producing and maintaining in-code developer comment type documentation and actually producing an API doc...basically:

"function(bucks)

  DEsCRIPTION:  Stupid function for rounding a float value to 2 decimal places.  Not used in actual currency settings.

  USAGE:  Just don't use.  Please terminate with extreme prejudice."

  Basically there is more than one type of documentation.  Code monkey docs are NOT user docs, though user docs ARE code-monkey docs (gotta now what the stuff is supposed to do if you are going to go "fixing" on it).  So, basically there might be some noise and confussing about things related to these things, but NOTHING is under fire to be deprecated.  As a matter of fact, for user docs, we should expand our use of mediaWiki greatly.  Personally, as I told Robbie, I hate mark-up, and I would rather use LibreOffice with the ODB and all the versioning and changes tracking stuff it has, as well as it's ability to export straight to PDF, HTML, a database or whatever.  That is irrelevant.  I am free to do whatever work I like with whatever I want, and I am sure I can feed it to you as source material to consider without consternation.  The relevant fact is that:

HARLEY IS HEAD LIBRARIAN.

-The end.

  We will all understand that, and support your decisions on the ways and means side.

(Robby O'Connor) #6

Oh I was speaking of the painpoints of people not wanting to interact with GitHub and Markdown/reStructuredText or whatever format we’d use. I have no plans of taking anything away the wiki – if you want it – it’s going to remain but I was more proposing this – I’d be willing to convert the content if there was conesnsus. The idea is to push this project into this decade – where many are moving away from wikis…but there are better battles to have – I can only voice my opinions but the devs who work with the tools are the ones who should make the final decision.