search

ropensci-archive / wishlist

:no_entry: ARCHIVED :no_entry:
https://discuss.ropensci.org/c/wishlist/6
50 stars 4 forks source link

Workflow for editing wiki #2

Closed cboettig closed 9 years ago

cboettig commented 9 years ago

I've added an additional comment to @Ironholds's excellent suggestion regarding RDF and RDFA. I wasn't sure what the best workflow to go about this was though. In particular, we want a workflow for these kind of edits where the original proposer can see comments about existing packages, etc and decide how best to modify their description. (Sure, I as the later editor of the wiki page could try and guess how it does / doesn't fit in, but that's not ideal). I tried tagging @ironholds in the commit message -- not sure if that works on wikis.

Anyway, perhaps the README can clarify some of the workflow here?

Ironholds commented 9 years ago

I didn't see the ping, so I don't think it works. Womp womp :(. Ideas for what the workflow should look like? I'm open to any suggestions :). Just off the top of my head, we could use issues to discuss specific things with specific proposals (one issue for "volunteer to help with [project], which doesn't have a repo yet", or something)

cboettig commented 9 years ago

Yeah, I'm just not sure the wiki is really the right workflow for this. Maybe all requests should be filed as issues instead, and they can be updated as the work progresses and closed as when the feature is done? (facilitating #3 as well)

I think this is basically a collection of (rather large) "feature requests", and I think the Github issues tracker works a bit better for that kind of thing than a wiki does. (Also in identifying really active 'requests', tagging (e.g. 'wontfix', 'priority', 'new', 'update', 'extend'), milestoning them, facilitating dialog etc).

What do you think about just using the issues tracker instead of the wiki for these requests?

Ironholds commented 9 years ago

I think that makes a lot of sense! @karthik thoughts?

karthik commented 9 years ago

I tried tagging @ironholds in the commit message -- not sure if that works on wikis.

Unfortunately it doesn't work for the wiki git repo. I made some workflow comments in #3.

jennybc commented 9 years ago

I am anti-GitHub wiki for these sorts of reasons. Poorly integrated with everything else.

Ironholds commented 9 years ago

@jennybc is that a vote for "the wiki as a status store, the issues to discuss"?

leeper commented 9 years ago

I agree with @cboettig that issues would be the way to go for this. I think it also then needs a firm commitment from one or more people to actively mod the repo.

Ironholds commented 9 years ago

Happy to give that commitment!

cboettig commented 9 years ago

@leeper @Ironholds @karthik Just a ping here since this issue is still open and the README is still directing people to add suggestions on the wiki page; though it looks like we are also getting suggestions on the issues page.

Shall we go ahead and update the README to point users to the issues list instead? Looks like some of the requests on the wiki might need to be migrated to issues as well.

(Happy to assist but didn't want to forge ahead changing things)

Ironholds commented 9 years ago

No problem at my end!

leeper commented 9 years ago

:+1:

cboettig commented 8 years ago

looks like we still have some really good ideas on the Wiki that aren't copied over to issues. Could we port them over to issues so that we can have a bit more discussion thread and keep them in the same place?

karthik commented 8 years ago

I was thinking the same. Let's do it.