Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

Who has experience with MediaWiki? (RE: Documentation)

2»

Comments

  • dokuwiki is totally the way to go.
  • omfgomfg New
    edited July 2005
    oops
  • MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    hahaha
  • Well whatever you decide, i'm willing to help with any docs or whatever in any ways i can (which probably arent many..but the thoughts there!) Just let me know.
  • edited July 2005
    Dammit! Use Vanilla! It's got the same freakin' name, it looks nice, you can set it to require accounts, and it probably cooks you dinner and cleans up after the dog, too. http://www.vanillasite.at/space/start intro in two minutes: http://www.vanillasite.at/space/Vanilla+in+2+Minutes install information: http://www.vanillasite.at/space/documentation A site that runs it: http://www.langreiter.com/space/vanillasite.at (O.K. technically it looks like it's called Vanillasite, but hey, close enough)
  • omg copyright the name vanilla and sue everyone who tries to use it!
  • Heh, imagine the confusion: "Wow, look, they use Vanilla for the Vanilla documentation!" "Uh, that's a different Vanilla." "Wha...?"
  • lechlech Chicagoland
    edited July 2005
    ok this isn't the same vanilla. nm
  • Actually it's not hard to write one at all. In fact it's quite easy. let me clean up some code, and I'll toss it up. it's a single file (well and a css file). This is based off of some code I found elsewhere on the web, but the one I've been rewriting is a lot more complicated. I'm thinking to start over actually. But this one is really really simple. It doesn't have user authentication, but does keep history (as any good Wiki should) and also logs ip's.

    It's not really well documented, but should be _easy_ to set up. basically, a number of things are hard coded.

    But, reading it should give you an idea of how easy it is to write one.

    Wiki.tar
  • MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    edited July 2005
    I appreciate the enthusiasm. Seriously. But I just don't have time to write a new one. 0 seconds available. I downloaded dokuwiki and started configuring it. Looks like it will do the job just fine.
  • Good good. well whenever you feel like writing one, I'll use it. i mean vanilla is already a breeze to use! :) Or, maybe (just maybe) I'll have to get off my ass and try to do half as great a job as any of this. Keep up the great work Mark.
  • WOOT DOKUWIKI!
  • MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    Okay - spent a few hours working on Docuwiki to get it looking how I want. Not bad so far. I will have to spend all day off of Vanilla tomorrow so I can get a significant amount of "real work" done. Tomorrow night I'll try to get it finished to a point where it is ready for upload to lussumo.com/docs. At that point I will reveal the first big chunk of development documentation.
  • just out of interest, what time is it back there mark?
  • MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    It was just about 3am when I wrote that post
  • I'm stoked on writing documentation.
  • I run a Mediawikiwiki. It's absolutely as fat and horrible and unintuitive as you suggest. Unfortunately all the lesser wikis either lack the stress testing and structure needed to stop them falling to bits under large scale use, or decide to invent their very own ruleset and markup, convinced theirs is the right way and will become adopted as a standard. Which it never does. So the only real wiki-option at the moment is to take Mediawiki and try and minimise the sanity damage. That the thing is so popular and still lacks any kind of structured official documentation goes a long way towards illustrating how bloated and confusing it is by default.
  • Yea but documentation isn't going to be as massive as an encyclopedia. Dokuwiki will work just fine.
  • And how!
This discussion has been closed.