Migrate website documentation to the Wiki

[Molle Bestefich]

Molle Bestefich wrote:
> > This method is already available in the form of checking out lostwages
> > cvs, making changes, doing a diff, and sending in the patch to be
> > accepted.  The only difference is that anyone can make changes to
> > lostwages this way (assuming they get committed).
>
> But a wiki lends itself to editing so much better than the tardy
> process of finding the right CVS server, logging in, checking out a
> working copy, finding the piece of documentation that is relevant,
> making a change, checking if it compiles, sending a patch to
> wine-patches (that never shows up) and to wine-devel (and never
> receiving a response).

> Compare that to just sending a mail to wine-devel saying eg. "hey
> guys, there's [snip], can I get editing rights to it?
>
> [snip] the response will probably be "Sounds good, you've
> got access to edit the <blah blah> section now.  Remember to click
> <preview> and see if it looks good before you commit."

I generally think that the upfront editing capabilities is a very good
trade-in for the pre-commit peer review that we get with the CVS
solution.

But I'll agree that before anyone makes their initial contribution,
there should be some peer review.

So how about this:
Use one of the Wikis that has a CVS (or SVN, for that matter) backend.
New contributors will have to checkout a WC, conjure up a patch and
send it to wine-devel.
Others can judge the quality of their contribution, and if it seems
like the contributor actually posseses sane judgement when it comes to
document(ation) editing, they can be given Wiki edit privileges.

Hum?
Just a suggestion.