Jim Henderson wrote:

> 
> Cool, what type of database is on the backend?  Is there an XML export 
> for the entire wiki?
> 
> Jim


Simple MS access with pointers to the file attachments.  You should be 
able import the whole thing with a few SQL statements in an afternoon. 
I bet Tom Melly can move the dns entries to point to the new server in a 
flash too.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:11:09 -0400, Tom Galvin wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Cool, what type of database is on the backend?  Is there an XML export
>> for the entire wiki?
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> Simple MS access with pointers to the file attachments.  You should be
> able import the whole thing with a few SQL statements in an afternoon. I
> bet Tom Melly can move the dns entries to point to the new server in a
> flash too.

Hmmm, well, I'm not that great with SQL. but I do know that there'll have 
to be some structural transformations take place to fit the schema in 
MySQL for Mediawiki - but I sure can take a look at it and see.

If you want to e-mail it, you can send it to povwiki at gmail (set that 
up just for the wiki).

Or I can arrange to pick it up on an FTP server at work on Thursday.  
Whichever works best for you. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I thought the main audience of this new wiki was POV-Ray developers,
> with its main goal being the development of POV-Ray 4.0 and beyond.

Initially, this is so.

>   Perhaps the wiki could be split into two distinct parts: Development
> and users. The former would deal with the development of the program
> (especially concentrating on pov4), while the latter could contain
> everything related to using the program.

This is a good idea. I had already thought I would like to find a way to
import the POV documentation into the wiki (need to finish setting up some
math and latex stuff for that), to allow either annotations or corrections.
(What becomes of it after that is a different question - I doubt that the
wiki would support sufficiently rich layout that we could directly export
the edited docs into the same form as in which they currently exist).

I'd also encourage folks to add tutorials and suchlike to the wiki, under
the user section.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

> We can break things down by POV version, for example; that would give us
> distinct discussion areas for 3.6, 3.7, and 4.0.
>
> As the prospective users of this system, what would be a useful structure
> for you?
>
> Jim

I don't think breaking things down by version is a good idea at all. Let's
say I have a question about radiosity, I have to look thru 3 sections. If
the wiki is broken down by subject, I can look for that subject. If it
turns out the solution is in a Pov version I don't have, I just have to
download that version.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:12:43 -0400, fls13 wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>> We can break things down by POV version, for example; that would give
>> us distinct discussion areas for 3.6, 3.7, and 4.0.
>>
>> As the prospective users of this system, what would be a useful
>> structure for you?
>>
>> Jim
> 
> I don't think breaking things down by version is a good idea at all.
> Let's say I have a question about radiosity, I have to look thru 3
> sections. If the wiki is broken down by subject, I can look for that
> subject. If it turns out the solution is in a Pov version I don't have,
> I just have to download that version.

Perhaps cross-linking between versions would help with this - then you 
could search by subject or by version?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escribió:
> We can break things down by POV version, for example; that would give us 
> distinct discussion areas for 3.6, 3.7, and 4.0.

If you want a discussion area, use this news server. The wiki should be 
used to document stuff. Ideas included, but still, not a discussion in 
terms of a "conversation". Don't let it morph into a "forum".

Post a reply to this message

> This is a good idea. I had already thought I would like to find a way to
> import the POV documentation into the wiki (need to finish setting up some
> math and latex stuff for that), to allow either annotations or corrections.
> (What becomes of it after that is a different question - I doubt that the
> wiki would support sufficiently rich layout that we could directly export
> the edited docs into the same form as in which they currently exist).

What is the "source files" of POV-Ray documentation? Docbook? A few 
months ago I helped migrate all of BOINC documentation into a wiki, with 
originals being messy HTML. While a few people were migrating pages 
manually, I was writing a script, then I got all of it done in a few 
days. So maybe I can help...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:20:22 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson escribió:
>> We can break things down by POV version, for example; that would give
>> us distinct discussion areas for 3.6, 3.7, and 4.0.
> 
> If you want a discussion area, use this news server. The wiki should be
> used to document stuff. Ideas included, but still, not a discussion in
> terms of a "conversation". Don't let it morph into a "forum".

Actually, I agree with this idea - I phrased that badly, really - I was 
thinking more in terms of distinct coverage of specific versions.

(All one needs to do is read my comments on the Inkscape mailing list to 
see that I really am a proponent of "the right tool for the job", and 
Wikis are not for discussion but for collaborative documentation).

Sorry for the confusion.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:20:22 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson escribió:
>>> We can break things down by POV version, for example; that would give
>>> us distinct discussion areas for 3.6, 3.7, and 4.0.
>> If you want a discussion area, use this news server. The wiki should be
>> used to document stuff. Ideas included, but still, not a discussion in
>> terms of a "conversation". Don't let it morph into a "forum".
> 
> Actually, I agree with this idea - I phrased that badly, really - I was 
> thinking more in terms of distinct coverage of specific versions.
> 
> (All one needs to do is read my comments on the Inkscape mailing list to 
> see that I really am a proponent of "the right tool for the job", and 
> Wikis are not for discussion but for collaborative documentation).
> 

A partly agree, but there is nothing to document yet on POV4, mainly 
because it does not exist yet. A newsgroup is better to discuss things, 
but it also means that all comments are scattered around in the 
discussion tree. I'd like a place where we can collect all opinions and 
possibly the consensus reached, if any. That would mean that there will 
be several pages each discussing a specific topic that everybody can 
alter, but with the 'restriction' that nobody alters somebody else's 
comments. And where everybody preferably not even reacts to the other 
comments, but plainly states their own point of view.

Post a reply to this message

andrel escribió:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:20:22 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson escribió:
>>>> We can break things down by POV version, for example; that would give
>>>> us distinct discussion areas for 3.6, 3.7, and 4.0.
>>> If you want a discussion area, use this news server. The wiki should be
>>> used to document stuff. Ideas included, but still, not a discussion in
>>> terms of a "conversation". Don't let it morph into a "forum".
>>
>> Actually, I agree with this idea - I phrased that badly, really - I 
>> was thinking more in terms of distinct coverage of specific versions.
>>
>> (All one needs to do is read my comments on the Inkscape mailing list 
>> to see that I really am a proponent of "the right tool for the job", 
>> and Wikis are not for discussion but for collaborative documentation).
>>
> 
> A partly agree, but there is nothing to document yet on POV4, mainly 
> because it does not exist yet. A newsgroup is better to discuss things, 
> but it also means that all comments are scattered around in the 
> discussion tree. I'd like a place where we can collect all opinions and 
> possibly the consensus reached, if any. That would mean that there will 
> be several pages each discussing a specific topic that everybody can 
> alter, but with the 'restriction' that nobody alters somebody else's 
> comments. And where everybody preferably not even reacts to the other 
> comments, but plainly states their own point of view.

Exactly, I agree. The discussion is better on a newsgroup/forum/thing, 
and the ideas getting summarized in a wiki (minus flamewars :P).

Post a reply to this message