Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the arrow coming from github to the cdn, I would bet that's a deployment where the existing docs site gets deployed as a lambda. From there, CDN calls that aren't cached go to the lambda which are then served up.
If that’s the case, why not just use GitHub Actions? It’s more integrated and requires no setup.
MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
81–90 of 202 posts
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#82It is going to be the 5th iteration of CMS/wiki software. Hopefully this is the right one. 1. Netscape DevEdge 2. MediaWiki 3. Deki Wiki (renamed to MindTouch, closed source since 2013) 4. Kuma 5. Yari There's a nice history here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/MDN_at_ten/History_...
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#83Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#84This model - storing markdown files in a git(hub) repo and editing them on Github is getting more and more popular. It would be great to see Github add a more rich markdown/frontmatter editor to their interface to accomodate this.
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#85> "you will no longer be able to click Edit on a page, make and save a change, and have it show up nearly immediately on the page. You’ll also no longer be able to do your edits in a WYSIWYG editor."
> "you won’t have a WYSIWYG to instantly see what the page looks like as you add your content, and in addition you’ll be editing raw HTML"
They had a user-friendly system previously... Now users have to learn GitHub and author raw HTML! - I would point out that not all documentation writers are developers!
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#86Shows two flowcharts, of which the new one is arguably more complex.
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the problem is that each time the software changes, attributions are lost. I used to be active contributor to MDN with thousands of contributions. Countless hours of volunteer work. When the platform changed and my attributions were lost, I stopped contributing. I had no street cred anymore. I was angry. The switch to GitHub means the same problem once again. Nice way to alienate your community, MDN. Good luck wi…
I don't mean for this to come off rude, but at some point you have to learn that spending time in life on things you don't control can have extremely negative costs. How can you be angry? MDN isn't yours. Do they owe you something? It's volunteer work. You're not owed anything. You should consider attribution a privilege.
Volunteer projects rely on an unspoken contract that symbolic recognition, awarded fairly, is a real motivation. And if a project wants to succeed, it needs to take that seriously.
Does the project owe its contributors anything? Legally, no. But if it wants to survive and keep contributors, then it had better damn well work hard to recognize them. The project isn't owed anything. The project should consider its free, voluntary member contributions a privilege.
Understand now?
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#88This is a longstanding debate in wiki/collaboratively written content, but it it interesting to note that Wikipedia and the other WMF projects have been pretty successful with the anyone can edit, revert or fix after. The review first model is used on specific pages, where it is called pending changes protection, although this is not really like a PR in that there is no comment functionality, and the standard for acceptance is lower--I don't remember the exact wording but it is closer to "this is not vandalism/not obviously wrong" rather than "I personally endorse this" much less "this is the community consensus." These edits have no special endorsement once approved and can still be changed by other editors freely. One benefit of the PR model is finality, once an issue/PR is decided no one else is supposed to open another one with virtually the same change. Wikipedia sort of has that via article talk pages, but there is of course no centralized "maintainer" to adjudicate each and every controversy. Also, many editors just don't check or even understand them.
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the problem is that each time the software changes, attributions are lost. I used to be active contributor to MDN with thousands of contributions. Countless hours of volunteer work. When the platform changed and my attributions were lost, I stopped contributing. I had no street cred anymore. I was angry. The switch to GitHub means the same problem once again. Nice way to alienate your community, MDN. Good luck wi…
I don't mean for this to come off rude, but at some point you have to learn that spending time in life on things you don't control can have extremely negative costs. How can you be angry? MDN isn't yours. Do they owe you something? It's volunteer work. You're not owed anything. You should consider attribution a privilege.
GP is venting some anger here at a relevant moment and the perspective is obviously valuable.
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh no, my internet points!
Those are unpaid volunteers. If Mozilla robs them attribution for work (and yes this is work), then what's left? Specially now that they fired every single paid worker.