Am 07.08.2021 um 09:23 schrieb jr:

>>>> And a developers' manual...
...
>> To cram that content into the Wiki would have required writing import
>> scripts. And I have 0 - zero, zilch - knowledge about the Wiki import
>> format, while presumably Jim has just as much knowledge about the format
>> generated by said tool (beyond the fact that it's HTML, of course).
> 
> well, adding a link to the "suite of full-fledged HTML pages" certainly would
> not be too .. taxing.

It still requires to put that army of HTML pages _somewhere_ first.

Did I mention that I do not have access to the POV-Ray web server? Nor 
do I really care to get such access. It's not the kind of work I want to 
put on my plate. I'm no good at it.


>>> sure.  true also of alternatives, like eg 'fossil'.
>>
>> Now I think you're confusing the technological platform (such as Git)
>> with a particular service based on that platform (such as GitHub).
> 
> perhaps, though it seems comparable to me.

Not really.

Technically, they might not differ that much.

In terms of how widespread they are though (and therefore how familiar 
potential contributors might be with them, and how easy it might be to 
find a compatible tool that they would feel comfortable using), Git and 
Fossil are worlds apart.

You can't take two steps in open source development these days without 
stumbling across Git. There's not a single modern development tool out 
there without at least one Git plug-in (except for tools that have Git 
support already built in, or don't provide any plug-in interface at 
all). And the choice of tools for Git is so plentiful that it does 
include quite a few that cater to people who don't have their brain 
wired "the proper git way".

Fossil? The first time I've ever heard of it was when you just brought 
it up.

Post a reply to this message