linux-ata.org contributions

linux-ata.org contributions

[Jeff Garzik]

(cc'd to main potential content contributors)

What do you guys think about a git tree for linux-ata.org web pages, 
rather than a wiki?  A git tree would be my preference.

Whenever you want to update or add a page, just send a 'git pull' 
request to me...

As I noted to Tejun in IRC, the main caveat towards contributing to 
linux-ata.org -- in any fashion, git or wiki or whatever -- is that I 
would like to continue to have google adsense ads there.  They help pay 
for the non-Red Hat dedicated server that handles these web pages.

Additional disclosures follow, so that you may align or avoid as your 
ethics dictates...

Disclosure #1:  income from linux-ata.org: Aug US$31, Sep US$38, Oct US$37

Disclosure #2:  the dedicated server in question also handles my email 
(which is intentionally not on Red Hat machines) and other sites like 
linux.yyz.us.

Disclosure #3:  All this is done under the copyright and onus of 
"Dunvegan Media, Inc." which is really me and nobody else.  The company 
was started to put a corporate face on the lulu.com and AdSense stuff, 
and to give myself practice at running a business.  It also does a bit 
of email and DNS hosting for some friends, but the vast majority of 
usage is my linux stuff.  The company has always been [if only slightly] 
cash flow negative, so its not like I'm getting rich off this.  :)

	Jeff

Re: linux-ata.org contributions

[Jeff Garzik]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Whenever you want to update or add a page, just send a 'git pull' 
> request to me...


Or patches, if you wish to avoid git.

	Jeff

Re: linux-ata.org contributions

[Alan Cox]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:11:39 -0500
Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:

> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Whenever you want to update or add a page, just send a 'git pull' 
> > request to me...
> 
> 
> Or patches, if you wish to avoid git.

Bad idea IMHO

You ask Jeff to pull some updates, they go wrong, the website looks a
mess, Jeff goes to the pub.

There's an immediacy about the display of web content that often benefits
from an immediacy of updates/fixing. The web just isn't batch processed.

Re: linux-ata.org contributions

[Jeff Garzik]

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:11:39 -0500
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> 
>> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> Whenever you want to update or add a page, just send a 'git pull' 
>>> request to me...
>>
>> Or patches, if you wish to avoid git.
> 
> Bad idea IMHO
> 
> You ask Jeff to pull some updates, they go wrong, the website looks a
> mess, Jeff goes to the pub.
> 
> There's an immediacy about the display of web content that often benefits
> from an immediacy of updates/fixing. The web just isn't batch processed.

I wouldn't push it out unless it looked OK in my browser.

But overall I tend to dislike wikis.  They enable collaboration, but 
tend to be uniformly ugly, cumbersome, and CPU intensive.

	Jeff

Re: linux-ata.org contributions

[Alan Cox]

> > There's an immediacy about the display of web content that often benefits
> > from an immediacy of updates/fixing. The web just isn't batch processed.
> 
> I wouldn't push it out unless it looked OK in my browser.

But if you miss something (as will inevitably happen) and go away the
results are not good.

> But overall I tend to dislike wikis.  They enable collaboration, but 
> tend to be uniformly ugly, cumbersome, and CPU intensive.

I'm not saying wiki is the answer but that git is not the answer. Not
unless the people updating the site can trigger updates immediately

Re: linux-ata.org contributions

[James Andrewartha]

On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 18:06 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:11:39 -0500
> > Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >>> Whenever you want to update or add a page, just send a 'git pull' 
> >>> request to me...
> >>
> >> Or patches, if you wish to avoid git.
> > 
> > Bad idea IMHO
> > 
> > You ask Jeff to pull some updates, they go wrong, the website looks a
> > mess, Jeff goes to the pub.
> > 
> > There's an immediacy about the display of web content that often benefits
> > from an immediacy of updates/fixing. The web just isn't batch processed.
> 
> I wouldn't push it out unless it looked OK in my browser.
> 
> But overall I tend to dislike wikis.  They enable collaboration, but 
> tend to be uniformly ugly, cumbersome, and CPU intensive.

What about ikiwiki? It's a wiki backed by an RCS, which can be git.
http://ikiwiki.info/ and http://ikiwiki.info/rcs/git/

James Andrewartha

Re: linux-ata.org contributions

[Tejun Heo]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> I wouldn't push it out unless it looked OK in my browser.
> 
> But overall I tend to dislike wikis.  They enable collaboration, but
> tend to be uniformly ugly, cumbersome, and CPU intensive.

Besides collaboration, one thing I like about wikis is that updating the
page is an one-step process.  You can just go there and edit things
directly and pages are updated and history is recorded immediately.
Compared to normal web pages where you have to go through one or a few
iterations of edit -> view -> check in if you wanna -> upload / send
pages, it's just more efficient.

Well, I also dislike editing html pages directly and pages generated by
openoffice is ugly.

So, my preference is a wiki.  I don't care which wiki it is as long as I
can edit and view it directly.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Re: linux-ata.org contributions

[Jeff Garzik]

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> I wouldn't push it out unless it looked OK in my browser.
>>
>> But overall I tend to dislike wikis.  They enable collaboration, but
>> tend to be uniformly ugly, cumbersome, and CPU intensive.
> 
> Besides collaboration, one thing I like about wikis is that updating the
> page is an one-step process.  You can just go there and edit things
> directly and pages are updated and history is recorded immediately.
> Compared to normal web pages where you have to go through one or a few
> iterations of edit -> view -> check in if you wanna -> upload / send
> pages, it's just more efficient.
> 
> Well, I also dislike editing html pages directly and pages generated by
> openoffice is ugly.
> 
> So, my preference is a wiki.  I don't care which wiki it is as long as I
> can edit and view it directly.

So noted, it sounds like a wiki it greatly preferred by all involved. 
I'll look around for one I like.

Expect no action until Nov 16 at the earliest, of course...

	Jeff

Re: linux-ata.org contributions

[Tejun Heo]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> So, my preference is a wiki.  I don't care which wiki it is as long as I
>> can edit and view it directly.
> 
> So noted, it sounds like a wiki it greatly preferred by all involved.
> I'll look around for one I like.
> 
> Expect no action until Nov 16 at the earliest, of course...

Enjoy your vacation. :-)

-- 
tejun