[linuxsh-shmedia-dev] Re: [linuxsh-dev] Website thoughts?

[Fabio G. <fg...@ti...>]

Hi All,
I agree Paul's analysis, and I think linux-sh sites needs to be updated more 
and more frequently mainly for 2 reasons:
1) because Renesas is developing al lot of very interesting processors so in 
the  near future more peoples will be working aorund such an environment;
2) in the most cases an unupdated information is worse than a missing 
information because you can waste a lot of time doing something completaly 
changed but you don't know.

I don't know wiki at all, so to give an opinion I need to read something 
about.
Where can I found the best starter point for understanding Wiki?

Thanks a lot

Fabio


On Sunday 26 September 2004 16:58, Paul Mundt wrote:
> We have a bit of a problem with the LinuxSH site at the moment (well,
> perhaps not just at the moment, it has been stagnating for a long time
> now).
>
> For starters, anyone familiar with the current linuxsh-web code can
> attest that it's not the most fun peice of code to hack on and
> subsequently update on the shell.sf.net side. This gets very tedious,
> and is usually something no one wants to do (myself included).
>
> There's also cosmetic changes that need to be done for Hitachi ->
> Renesas and so forth.
>
> This now leaves us with a bit of a problem, in that the page is quite
> desperately needing an overhaul, but no one seems to have the time or
> inclination to do this (it really hasn't been touched much since Greg
> stopped playing with it several years ago).
>
> I've attempted to do some minor updates from time to time, but I just
> checked again and it's already been over a year since the last minor
> update I made, which in itself is quite amazing since it definitely
> doesn't seem that long.
>
> Documentation on the page is already well past being obsolete, which I
> suspect is part of the reason for the influx of crosstool inquiries we
> have been seeing on this list over the past couple of months (roughly
> one a week or so).
>
> At this point, we really need some outside input on this. Namely, what
> exactly do people want from the site? It seems counter productive to
> keep dragging around all of the old content from the current site, so
> this can all just be archived off somewhere and we can more or less
> start over with something that works for everyone.
>
> The other problem is sheer lack of content. I quite dislike coming up
> with web content, and I suspect most of the other developers here do as
> well, hence the complete lack of any recent content on the site.
> Unfortunately this is causing problems since often the same questions
> keep popping up continually.
>
> Despite my contempt for anything wiki-related, this may be the sanest
> way to go. Other groups have been having mixed success with wiki usage.
>
> In the event of a wiki setup, it's quite easy for users, vendors, etc.
> to add content dynamically to the site. This can be cleaned up and
> refined over time, but it pushes out a lot of the content creation to
> the userbase itself which may or may not end up being helpful.
>
> As an additional note, I have been spending more time writing a
> comprehensive SH guide as outlined in the TODO. This covers much of the
> kernel semantics in fairly good detail, as well as things like processor
> and board support, etc. however, this is also still a work in progress,
> and it will be awhile before I get a chance to finish it off and post
> it. In the meantime though, perhaps some of this can be offloaded into a
> wiki as a starting point for people interested in content generation.
>
> So, does anyone have any thoughts on this subject? Anyone have any
> opinions about the wiki route one way or the other? Are people willing
> to submit content? Or better yet, anyone with some free time interested
> in hacking on this?
>
> It would be nice to see some discussion on this matter so we don't end
> up wasting time implementing something that is just going to have the
> same problem as before. So this is a good chance for various lurkers on
> the list to say something, and yes, there are a lot of you.
>
> sh64 stuff should also be worked into the new site in some way. While
> much of the sh64 stuff is quite independent of the LinuxSH kernel tree,
> there are still overlaps, and it's ideal to have a central point for all
> Linux on SH, SH-5 too.