Re: moving to a git-backed wiki
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 2, 2011, 11:14 UTC
- Message-ID
- <m34o8maduw.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
- In-Reply-To
- <AANLkTi=07yifUAQYqabA8Dv1qmBTe=50+BDN-b0YZ1zb@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
Show 14 quoted lines
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Vincent Hanquez <tab@snarc.org> wrote: >> On 01/02/11 22:48, J.H. wrote: >>> >>> The wiki will almost universally have a "central site" no matter what >>> the backend. Personally I see little advantage to having a git backed >>> wiki myself. >> >> with git based wiki, you can clone the whole wiki on your local machine, and >> read/edit/commit on it locally using standard editor tool (i.e. $EDITOR). >> and the history/revision/diff is completely built-in. > > But there's no git based wiki (or any other wiki) that has even a > fraction of the features that MediaWiki has, or IMO a markup format > similarly sane.
Gollum (the engine used by git-based wikis on GitHub) offers support for MediaWiki format. I don't know how it is with editing and presenting history (end e.g. reverting spam), especially on older or text browsers.
-- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git