I hope Wiki.js does not fail
-
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@Emad-R said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@wrx7m both wiki.js and BookStack are nice. And in reality, DokuWiki isn't bad either. We use all three, in different situations.
I love MkDocs
https://docs.drush.org/en/master/cron/
https://www.mkdocs.org/A static generator? How do you handle constant updates from lots of users?
Pipelines in a CI/CD process. Treat it as code just like anything else
True, but I wonder how easy that is for non-tech staff to use.
I'm sure if you're using it you wouldn't have many non-technical people updating it. But theoretically it shouldn't be too hard through the GitLab web ui.
Not "too hard". But given that the theory behind a wiki is the insane ease of editing, it kind of defeats that. The background concept states that links are supposed to automatically make new pages. Editing should be in place. Trying to get normal end users to start going to GitHub feels cumbersome even just to explain.
Easy enough for techs to do, but seems better suited to something edited occasionally rather than constantly.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@Emad-R said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@wrx7m both wiki.js and BookStack are nice. And in reality, DokuWiki isn't bad either. We use all three, in different situations.
I love MkDocs
https://docs.drush.org/en/master/cron/
https://www.mkdocs.org/A static generator? How do you handle constant updates from lots of users?
Pipelines in a CI/CD process. Treat it as code just like anything else
True, but I wonder how easy that is for non-tech staff to use.
I'm sure if you're using it you wouldn't have many non-technical people updating it. But theoretically it shouldn't be too hard through the GitLab web ui.
Not "too hard". But given that the theory behind a wiki is the insane ease of editing, it kind of defeats that. The background concept states that links are supposed to automatically make new pages. Editing should be in place. Trying to get normal end users to start going to GitHub feels cumbersome even just to explain.
Easy enough for techs to do, but seems better suited to something edited occasionally rather than constantly.
That's why I said if you're using it it's prob mostly technical people. We use Asciidoctor in a pipeline and it works really well. As soon as a commit is made Jenkins runs the pipeline to build the new site with Gradle. It builds an HTML version and a PDF version. So it's really easy for people that understand that workflow and then it's automatically versioned.
-
Coincidentally this is also how my site is built. It's a static site built with Hugo on GitLab pages. Once a commit is made the CI/CD process starts on my GitLab runner and builds my site for me.
-
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@Emad-R said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@wrx7m both wiki.js and BookStack are nice. And in reality, DokuWiki isn't bad either. We use all three, in different situations.
I love MkDocs
https://docs.drush.org/en/master/cron/
https://www.mkdocs.org/A static generator? How do you handle constant updates from lots of users?
Pipelines in a CI/CD process. Treat it as code just like anything else
True, but I wonder how easy that is for non-tech staff to use.
I'm sure if you're using it you wouldn't have many non-technical people updating it. But theoretically it shouldn't be too hard through the GitLab web ui.
Not "too hard". But given that the theory behind a wiki is the insane ease of editing, it kind of defeats that. The background concept states that links are supposed to automatically make new pages. Editing should be in place. Trying to get normal end users to start going to GitHub feels cumbersome even just to explain.
Easy enough for techs to do, but seems better suited to something edited occasionally rather than constantly.
That's why I said if you're using it it's prob mostly technical people. We use Asciidoctor in a pipeline and it works really well. As soon as a commit is made Jenkins runs the pipeline to build the new site with Gradle. It builds an HTML version and a PDF version. So it's really easy for people that understand that workflow and then it's automatically versioned.
Oh, if using a static generator. I get it. I thought you meant using a wiki. Makes sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@Emad-R said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@wrx7m both wiki.js and BookStack are nice. And in reality, DokuWiki isn't bad either. We use all three, in different situations.
I love MkDocs
https://docs.drush.org/en/master/cron/
https://www.mkdocs.org/A static generator? How do you handle constant updates from lots of users?
Pipelines in a CI/CD process. Treat it as code just like anything else
True, but I wonder how easy that is for non-tech staff to use.
I'm sure if you're using it you wouldn't have many non-technical people updating it. But theoretically it shouldn't be too hard through the GitLab web ui.
Not "too hard". But given that the theory behind a wiki is the insane ease of editing, it kind of defeats that. The background concept states that links are supposed to automatically make new pages. Editing should be in place. Trying to get normal end users to start going to GitHub feels cumbersome even just to explain.
Easy enough for techs to do, but seems better suited to something edited occasionally rather than constantly.
That's why I said if you're using it it's prob mostly technical people. We use Asciidoctor in a pipeline and it works really well. As soon as a commit is made Jenkins runs the pipeline to build the new site with Gradle. It builds an HTML version and a PDF version. So it's really easy for people that understand that workflow and then it's automatically versioned.
Oh, if using a static generator. I get it. I thought you meant using a wiki. Makes sense.
Yeah it's a static documentation site. I guess you could say it's somewhat like a wiki, but it's not really. I don't like having to open a web interface, log in, click edit, blah blah when I can just edit it in a few seconds in vim and hit ctrl+g to commit.
-
@stacksofplates I love that flow of things. Where can I learn more about this and how it works?
-
@jmoore said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@stacksofplates I love that flow of things. Where can I learn more about this and how it works?
I'll do a write up if I get a chance tonight. It's pretty simple to set up.
-
@stacksofplates Cool, thanks very much
-
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@stacksofplates said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@Emad-R said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@scottalanmiller said in I hope Wiki.js does not fail:
@wrx7m both wiki.js and BookStack are nice. And in reality, DokuWiki isn't bad either. We use all three, in different situations.
I love MkDocs
https://docs.drush.org/en/master/cron/
https://www.mkdocs.org/A static generator? How do you handle constant updates from lots of users?
Pipelines in a CI/CD process. Treat it as code just like anything else
True, but I wonder how easy that is for non-tech staff to use.
I'm sure if you're using it you wouldn't have many non-technical people updating it. But theoretically it shouldn't be too hard through the GitLab web ui.
Not "too hard". But given that the theory behind a wiki is the insane ease of editing, it kind of defeats that. The background concept states that links are supposed to automatically make new pages. Editing should be in place. Trying to get normal end users to start going to GitHub feels cumbersome even just to explain.
Easy enough for techs to do, but seems better suited to something edited occasionally rather than constantly.
That's why I said if you're using it it's prob mostly technical people. We use Asciidoctor in a pipeline and it works really well. As soon as a commit is made Jenkins runs the pipeline to build the new site with Gradle. It builds an HTML version and a PDF version. So it's really easy for people that understand that workflow and then it's automatically versioned.
Oh, if using a static generator. I get it. I thought you meant using a wiki. Makes sense.
Yeah it's a static documentation site. I guess you could say it's somewhat like a wiki, but it's not really. I don't like having to open a web interface, log in, click edit, blah blah when I can just edit it in a few seconds in vim and hit ctrl+g to commit.
That makes more sense.
-
Here's the write-up. https://mangolassi.it/topic/18994/static-site-in-a-ci-cd-pipeline
It's somewhat brief, but a lot of this is kind of self explanatory.
