Hi All, As it looks like we are looking to quickly ramp up a project Wiki, I just wanted to throw out a suggest structure to get started with. I've found that it is easy to add/remove pages as need be, but its important to find an information structure that you are happy with and let it grow organically from there.
I'm happy to volunteer to help edit the wiki if need be.
News
Community Mailing List Info \--> Links to subscribe and search the archives To Do List \--> Any assistance needed by the community (code, dox, etc) Donate \--> Materials, mirroring, cash, booze...
Getting Started About Roundcube Installation Upgrading Dependencies Download CVS \--> By version Binaries/Packages \--> By version Known Issues \--> Can be compiled from issues raised in the mailing list
Documentation Developer API UI End User/Administrator
Development Feature Requests \--> From the mailing list, or raised directly by users Roadmap \--> By version, or by development cycle Changelog \--> By version
Troubleshooting \--> Can be compiled from issues solved in the mailing list Installation Authentication IMAP/IMAPS etc
Thoughts anyone?
Geoffrey
Hi there,
It seems to be a good starting point but it lacks some entry like the FAQ one which I would add into the documentation category. Anyway, which wiki project should be used to do it ? I have to say I often use dokuwiki and I like it very much...it has templates, plugins and does not require a database backend...
Le Lundi 10 Octobre 2005 12:54, Geoffrey McCaleb a écrit :
Geoffrey, Olivier:
We decided to install a Trac system (http://projects.edgewall.com/trac/) to manage the source code, tickets, changelogs and the documentation. This system enables to link all important parts together. Your suggestions look good but there might be some basic structure given by the Trac system itself.
Regards, Thomas
So we just have to use the wiki included into trac itself haven't we ?
Le Lundi 10 Octobre 2005 13:10, Thomas Bruederli a écrit :
From the trac documentation:
"Wiki itself does not enforce any structure, but rather resembles a stack of empty paper sheets, where you can organize information and documentation as you see fit, and later reorganize if necessary."
Ergo, the wiki world is flat. I suppose for a new project like this it can work, but am dubious how a flat structure will scale. All the example sites show wiki's with just a few pages. I have to be honest I like the way Wordpress has implemented their wiki, but it is early days I suppose.
Geoffrey
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:10:58 +0200, Thomas Bruederli roundcube@gmail.com wrote:
Geoffrey McCaleb geoffrey@tabasco.net schreef:
The wiki will scale just fine. A great example of this is the Wiki at www.rubyonrails.org . It's good to see Trac accepted as source management tool for Roundcube. Maybe Thomas can make a roadmap now so we know where the priorities are. Plugins are nice, but i'd rather see the basic functionality like searching and sorting implemented now.
Trac doesn't want to impose any limitions which is great. I can volunteer for the Wiki too and I am looking forward to Bob's Trac setup.
Another feature request (like we don't have enough already) is the support of message flagging/labeling. It's somewhat prepared in the Ilohamail source but not in the interface of Roundcube.
Best regards,
Jasper
Sorry, Ruby is exactly the example of what I was talking about. The lack of structure is clearly a problem on that wiki. w/o any form of primary and secondary navigation, you force the user to continually navigate back to the home page (or section page) to find an appropriate link/information. Granted, I suppose you could work around that by implementing your own custom navigation....
In any case, just my opinion. There definitly is a lot to like about the Trac system.
Geoffrey
On 10/10/2005, "Jasper Slits" jasper@insiders.nl wrote:
Geoffrey McCaleb geoffrey@tabasco.net schreef:
Well, that's why there is a lot of wiki gardening at Ruby page. There is so much information that needs to be restructured. Yet I find it still quite usefull and it's easier to maintain structure with a wiki than using a forum.
But a wiki should exist next to a manual, a wiki cannot substitute a manual imho. So when someone searches for information, he first reads the manual, then the FAQ and last resort could be the wiki.
Just my 2 cents (ex. VAT)...
In my opinion the manual should be realised with the wiki....it would be simplier to maintain...
Le Lundi 10 Octobre 2005 15:13, Jasper Slits a écrit :
On 10/10/2005, at 14:37, Geoffrey McCaleb wrote:
The lack of structure is clearly a problem on that wiki.
Take a look at CakePHP's wiki: https://trac.cakephp.org/
You can define a custom navigation in Trac.
Should you need something more structured, I'd suggest you
all to take a look at Hieraki: http://www.hieraki.org
They have a demo working at http://demo.hieraki.org/frontpage/index
Hope it helps.
Ale Muñoz
P.S: Maybe it is just my mailer, but shouldn't the Reply-to: header
be set by the mailing list to dev@lists.roundcube.net? I can't
reply to posts by hitting "Reply"...
Call me old fashioned, but for me I prefer Media Wiki: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
It has a clearly defined informational structure, which personally I feel is more easy to understand.
I think this thread though highlights the fundamental problem with ANY wiki, we all have different comfort levels and understand structure in different ways. There's nothing wrong with a lose structure, but some people (like me) find it confusing. However, other people, find highly structured sites constricting and a pain to manage.
Which camp is right? We are all. :)
I'd say this was my 2 pence, but I just noticed GBP has dropped slightly against the yen so my opinion is now literally worth nothing.
Geoffrey
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:35:37 +0200, Ale Muñoz ale@bomberstudios.com wrote:
Once we get started on the wiki docs in trac, it won't be that hard to transition to another wiki (mediaiwki for example) should we need it. The markup and things are similar, so I'd think there should be an import script, or even manually, it'll be pretty easy. The key is to get a start.
Wordpress for example uses trac for source control management, reporting and tickets (http://trac.wordpress.org), and mediawiki for documentation (http://codex.wordpress.org). It's working out well for them, but like I said, once we have the documentation, it might be a week's worth of time to transition over. So the key is to just get started, IMHO :-)
-- Praneet Kandula
On 10/10/05, Geoffrey McCaleb geoffrey@tabasco.net wrote:
Hello all!
Quick intro to everyone: I'm a software trainer and documentation guy in my day job, and I'd emailed Thomas off-list previously asking to help out with this incredibly useful project. I'll never use Squirrelmail again! :)
I know this might be jumping the gun, but I looked at Trac's website and there's a MediaWiki to TracWiki conversion script, so I figured I'd get the ball rolling by setting up a wiki on my own site with the structure suggested at the top of this thread (thanks, Geoffrey!). There's no real content there as of yet, but feel free to add/edit/delete! If we decide not to use it, or Trac gets set up really quickly, then this will be superfluous and I'll take it down, but I figured in the interim, we could harness the momentum, right?
Here it is: http://roundcubewiki.baizman.net/
Go for it, Roundcube users and developers, start contributing! If you need help, email me at marc@baizman.net. I'll be contributing to this as well, of course.
Marc
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:30:54 -0400, Praneet Kandula pkmlist@gmail.com wrote:
-
Ale Muñoz -
Geoffrey McCaleb -
Jasper Slits -
Marc Baizman -
Olivier Sirven -
Praneet Kandula -
Thomas Bruederli