Who knows a !wiki that uses some kind of #peer #review process ? Found so far #scholarpedia (and some others, unclear):
http://skilledtests.com/wiki/Wikis_and_reviews
#wiki
http://skilledtests.com/wiki/Wikis_and_reviews
#wiki
Abinoam Jr likes this.
See all 10 comments
Git is hard at the beginning but it is worth.
Scenario:
1) I read an online book (fork) and find a typo.
2) I fix it (patch), and, in my version (branch) of the book, this should show instantly.
3) My fix should be available (pull request) to be "incorporated" (merged) into the main book (master branch).
I think this is the kind of work to a backend based on git. Git relies on hardlinks and it's very "economic" about harddisk space. And it's fast.
(bare) Git is too hard for "normal" people. It has to be a good system (good interface, and everythig) based on (at least like) git.
This merge problems can be circunvented with a well designed system. But, I think this kind of system doesn't exist yet. So let's keep an eye on the options. Thanks for your tips.
Scenario:
1) I read an online book (fork) and find a typo.
2) I fix it (patch), and, in my version (branch) of the book, this should show instantly.
3) My fix should be available (pull request) to be "incorporated" (merged) into the main book (master branch).
I think this is the kind of work to a backend based on git. Git relies on hardlinks and it's very "economic" about harddisk space. And it's fast.
(bare) Git is too hard for "normal" people. It has to be a good system (good interface, and everythig) based on (at least like) git.
This merge problems can be circunvented with a well designed system. But, I think this kind of system doesn't exist yet. So let's keep an eye on the options. Thanks for your tips.
semper en excretus