Author Topic: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed  (Read 16294 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline josh landers

  • LV4 Regular (Next: 200)
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
  • Rating: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2014, 04:13:44 pm »
Could a new board be startrd and maybe have stricter rules of who can post, example if a person has posted x amount of times in an axe related board then they can post in the axe wiki that way you have to have a certain amount of posts that have been helpfull beforehand.

Offline Streetwalrus

  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3821
  • Rating: +80/-8
    • View Profile
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2014, 05:47:43 pm »
Or a GitHub repo with markdown format doc. Only people part of the "team" can freely edit stuff, others have to make a pull request which will be reviewed by said team.
It's easy enough to revert changes or see previous versions of it too.

Offline josh landers

  • LV4 Regular (Next: 200)
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
  • Rating: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #32 on: March 26, 2014, 10:05:44 am »
Err, Github isnt really a good way for what is needed unless axe parser became open source for everyone to see. However the site is a really organized way to see code. What if we just had a select group of Axe users to provide documentation and information. A group of 10 would be the max and 5 minimum.

Offline alberthrocks

  • Moderator
  • LV8 Addict (Next: 1000)
  • ********
  • Posts: 876
  • Rating: +103/-10
    • View Profile
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #33 on: March 26, 2014, 10:28:56 am »
Err, Github isnt really a good way for what is needed unless axe parser became open source for everyone to see. However the site is a really organized way to see code. What if we just had a select group of Axe users to provide documentation and information. A group of 10 would be the max and 5 minimum.
Just because it isn't open source (which is not necessarily true) doesn't mean you can't create open documentation on a website like GitHub. Like I mentioned before, you can generate Sphinx documentation, put it on GitHub, and have a site like readthedocs.org generate and host it.

As for the wiki, if someone can support it, why not? :) Are we going to stick with MediaWiki though, or use another wiki engine?
Withgusto Networks Founder and Administrator
Main Server Status: http://withg.org/status/
Backup Server Status: Not available
Backup 2/MC Server Status: http://mc.withg.org/status/


Proud member of ClrHome!

Miss my old signature? Here it is!
Spoiler For Signature:
Alternate "New" IRC post notification bot (Newy) down? Go here to reset it! http://withg.org/albert/cpuhero/

Withgusto Networks Founder and Administrator
Main Server Status: http://withg.org/status/
Backup Server Status: Not available
Backup 2/MC Server Status: http://mc.withg.org/status/

Activity remains limited due to busyness from school et al. Sorry! :( Feel free to PM, email, or if you know me well enough, FB me if you have a question/concern. :)

Don't expect me to be online 24/7 until summer. Contact me via FB if you feel it's urgent.


Proud member of ClrHome!

Spoiler For "My Projects! :D":
Projects:

Computer/Web/IRC Projects:
C______c: 0% done (Doing planning and trying to not forget it :P)
A_____m: 40% done (Need to develop a sophisticated process queue, and a pretty web GUI)
AtomBot v3.0: 0% done (Planning stage, may do a litmus test of developer wants in the future)
IdeaFrenzy: 0% done (Planning and trying to not forget it :P)
wxWabbitemu: 40% done (NEED MOAR FEATURES :P)

Calculator Projects:
M__ C_____ (an A____ _____ clone): 0% done (Need to figure out physics and Axe)
C2I: 0% done (planning, checking the demand for it, and dreaming :P)

Offline Streetwalrus

  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3821
  • Rating: +80/-8
    • View Profile
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #34 on: March 26, 2014, 12:42:10 pm »
If mediawiki then it should be like on WikiTI where you have to privately ask for an account to prevent spam bots from even reaching the site.

Offline DJ Omnimaga

  • Clacualters are teh gr33t
  • CoT Emeritus
  • LV15 Omnimagician (Next: --)
  • *
  • Posts: 55942
  • Rating: +3154/-232
  • CodeWalrus founder & retired Omnimaga founder
    • View Profile
    • Dream of Omnimaga Music
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #35 on: March 26, 2014, 02:02:50 pm »
I think it would be better if the wiki was modified so that it shares the same account as your Omni one or at least modify Omni so when you sign up, it automatically creates a Mediawiki account. If you have 1 Omni post, it would let you edit the wiki. I think that's how Cemetech's Doors CS wiki operates, but I could be wrong.

Else, requesting for an account could work, as long as the ones in charge of the wiki won't constantly disappear, forcing users to wait months or forever before their account is finally approved.
Now active at https://discord.gg/cuZcfcF (CodeWalrus server)

Offline josh landers

  • LV4 Regular (Next: 200)
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
  • Rating: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #36 on: March 26, 2014, 02:32:51 pm »
That sounds reasonable... but the wiki admins shouldnt be omni admins. That way the current admins dont get bogged down in approvals.

Offline DJ Omnimaga

  • Clacualters are teh gr33t
  • CoT Emeritus
  • LV15 Omnimagician (Next: --)
  • *
  • Posts: 55942
  • Rating: +3154/-232
  • CodeWalrus founder & retired Omnimaga founder
    • View Profile
    • Dream of Omnimaga Music
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #37 on: March 26, 2014, 03:47:32 pm »
Well, although more admins fluent in Axe would be a good idea, also having the Omni admins as wiki admins would make sense because they are the ones in charge of running the site. I don't think it would make any sense if the owners of this website had zero control on what content is allowed in the Axe wiki, other than the fact only three admins (that are no longer active) ever used Axe. That way, they can also solve issues if the wiki crashes or anything.

Also those who aren't in charge of Omni that becomes wiki admins should be long-time Axe users that are still active and trustable. Remember that one Omni staff that tried to delete the entire Axe sub-forum and banned everyone from the IRC chatroom just because one of the Omni admins was Christian. They should definitively have the same rules as the rest of the staff and their activity monitored (for example, if they stop posting for months or if they often start drama).
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 03:56:07 pm by DJ Omnimaga »
Now active at https://discord.gg/cuZcfcF (CodeWalrus server)

Offline Streetwalrus

  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3821
  • Rating: +80/-8
    • View Profile
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #38 on: March 26, 2014, 05:08:33 pm »
I think there should be a link in your account settings if you have over 5 posts to create a wiki account instantly. That should prevent spam, avoid over 9000 unused accounts and still be an easy way. Of course one could still mail the wiki admins to get an account created.
Also according to your criteria I qualify as a wiki admin/staff. ;)

Offline Eeems

  • Mr. Dictator
  • Administrator
  • LV13 Extreme Addict (Next: 9001)
  • *************
  • Posts: 6265
  • Rating: +318/-36
  • little oof
    • View Profile
    • Eeems
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #39 on: March 26, 2014, 08:21:03 pm »
For having Omnimaga host an integrated wiki, somebody can put in a request for that. I'd have to talk it over with the other admins, and make sure the integration was understood by enough of us that I (or whoever built the integration) am not the only one who can support it.

Having an integrated wiki that requires an Omnimaga account to register would be nice, but honestly I think if we want to start adding more documentation for things on a wiki, wikiti is a better option.

For this it would probably be better to use github like albert mentioned.
/e

Offline willrandship

  • Omnimagus of the Multi-Base.
  • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2953
  • Rating: +98/-13
  • Insert sugar to begin programming subroutine.
    • View Profile
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #40 on: March 26, 2014, 08:23:59 pm »
@street 5 seems a little low. Why not have it be the same as omnom? It's not like you need an account to look at the wiki, just to edit it.

Offline DJ Omnimaga

  • Clacualters are teh gr33t
  • CoT Emeritus
  • LV15 Omnimagician (Next: --)
  • *
  • Posts: 55942
  • Rating: +3154/-232
  • CodeWalrus founder & retired Omnimaga founder
    • View Profile
    • Dream of Omnimaga Music
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #41 on: March 26, 2014, 08:24:49 pm »
Yeah I sent a request earlier today :)

That said, now that you mention WikiTI, I guess that could be a nice alternative if people don't mind WikiTI drifting away from its ASM near-exclusivity, since originally WikiTI was created just for Z80 ASM.
Now active at https://discord.gg/cuZcfcF (CodeWalrus server)

Offline Streetwalrus

  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3821
  • Rating: +80/-8
    • View Profile
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #42 on: March 27, 2014, 02:18:38 am »
@street 5 seems a little low. Why not have it be the same as omnom? It's not like you need an account to look at the wiki, just to edit it.
Yeah that's true. However I always thought OmnomIRC needed post count was a bit high.

Offline DrDnar

  • LV7 Elite (Next: 700)
  • *******
  • Posts: 546
  • Rating: +97/-1
    • View Profile
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #43 on: March 27, 2014, 02:57:56 am »
That said, now that you mention WikiTI, I guess that could be a nice alternative if people don't mind WikiTI drifting away from its ASM near-exclusivity, since originally WikiTI was created just for Z80 ASM.
I'm the only WikiTI admin that matters (I'm the only one you have a decent chance of contacting), and I don't mind. There's USB8X documentation on the Wiki, and there's even a BASIC section on the Wiki, although it's pretty poor.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 03:00:46 am by DrDnar »
"No tools will make a man a skilled workman, or master of defense, nor be of any use to him who has not learned how to handle them, and has never bestowed any attention upon them. . . . Yes, [] the tools which would teach men their own use would be beyond price."—Plato's The Republic, circa 380 BC

Offline TIfanx1999

  • ಠ_ಠ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
  • CoT Emeritus
  • LV13 Extreme Addict (Next: 9001)
  • *
  • Posts: 6173
  • Rating: +191/-9
    • View Profile
Re: [Controversial] Better Axe Documentation Could Be Needed
« Reply #44 on: March 27, 2014, 09:33:23 am »
If we were to set up one internally here (a wiki) I wouldn't mind helping manage it. I'd guess it can't be too difficult. Don't know about integration to the site or how that would work though.