On 07/26/11 - 09:40:32AM, Justin Clift wrote:
On 26/07/2011, at 2:26 AM, Mo Morsi wrote:
>>> You know, I'm hesitant to suggest that a third wiki will solve our
>>> problems, but...
>>> I'm really liking Github's wiki system. To Hugh's requirement,
>>> doesn't go down all the time. It also supports multiple markup formats,
>>> so people can write in whatever is most natural to them. (As trivial as
>>> this sounds, we want to make it easy.) We could migrate content over
>>> from both wikis to avoid the obvious problem of having three wikis.
>>> Of course, the obvious downside is that not all of our projects are
>>> using Github, so it might be a little odd to have documentation kept on
>>> an external site.
>> Yeah, I am liking github more and more, and I think we should move more of our
>> projects to it. However, for the wiki itself, I suggest we just take the
>> content from the mediawiki and put it in redmine. After all, redmine has to
>> work *anyway*, so we may as well use the wiki there.
> +1 to the wiki on redmine.
How (in the real world) stable and reliable is Redmine being these days.
A few weeks ago, it was pretty common for it to be offline/unavailable at
times. If that's still occurring, then there's no way we should keep putting
eggs into that basket. GitHub's wiki would be fine with me. They have a
very good collaboration platform, and it's to our benefit to use it (well).
But my point is that the whole development process revolves around Redmine,
so it has to be up anyway. If we want to revisit *that* decision, that's
opening up a whole other can of worms.
(as a sidenote, while I'm really digging GitHub, I wonder how long it will be
until we have to start paying them for service, at which point it will seem
pretty silly for us to have moved there)