The Case for a Git-Powered Project Gutenberg
neosmart.net
The Case for a Git-Powered Project Gutenberg
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: The Case for a Git-Powered Project Gutenberg
#2Version control is superior than other "sync" solutions when the data is:
- Modified mainly by humans, at human speeds
- Mistakes can be made and need reverted atomically
- Data integrity and chains of changes need to be preserved
The downside is that teaching non-techies how to make it work is difficult, and the first time a merge is required they're frequently in too deep. This is more of a human problem - Word's revision tracking is somewhat inscrutable as well...
Re: The Case for a Git-Powered Project Gutenberg
#3Version control is superior than other "sync" solutions when the data is: - Modified mainly by humans, at human speeds - Mistakes can be made and need reverted atomically - Data integrity and chains of changes need to be preserved I agree with the article that PG is a great example of where version control could work with great effect. The downside is that teaching non-techies how to make it work is difficult, and th…
I'm the author of TFA and I must completely agree with you on this point. Is there a human-friendly VCS out there? I don't care how featured or not it is, as Git can be configured to pull from it (a la git-svn). Just anything that non-tech-related persons (or even just non-coders!) can use without wanting to pull their hair out and feeling very stupid?
For example, one of my software products has translations powered by the community. The entire translation files (XMLs) are hosted on GitHub, yet invariably all the volunteers would much prefer to email me their translations and I commit them on my end with silly commit messages like "Commit by John Doe jdoe@example.com with fixes for bla bla bla"
---
I suppose a web interface to git could be written, but it would be very limited and would have to be strict about what can/cannot be uploaded. But multiple drop downs with a simple "pick the file you have an update for," "pick the version your changes are based on," "browse for the new version of the file," and "what changes did you make?" inputs would probably be enough for the vast majority of non-techies..
Re: The Case for a Git-Powered Project Gutenberg
#4Version control is superior than other "sync" solutions when the data is: - Modified mainly by humans, at human speeds - Mistakes can be made and need reverted atomically - Data integrity and chains of changes need to be preserved I agree with the article that PG is a great example of where version control could work with great effect. The downside is that teaching non-techies how to make it work is difficult, and th…
I'm the author of TFA and I must completely agree with you on this point. Is there a human-friendly VCS out there? I don't care how featured or not it is, as Git can be configured to pull from it (a la git-svn). Just anything that non-tech-related persons (or even just non-coders!) can use without wanting to pull their hair out and feeling very stupid? For example, one of my software products has translations powered…
The closest thing to a human friendly VCS for non-programmers would be document management software like Autonomy's WorkSite or EMC's Documentum.
Re: The Case for a Git-Powered Project Gutenberg
#5Version control is superior than other "sync" solutions when the data is: - Modified mainly by humans, at human speeds - Mistakes can be made and need reverted atomically - Data integrity and chains of changes need to be preserved I agree with the article that PG is a great example of where version control could work with great effect. The downside is that teaching non-techies how to make it work is difficult, and th…
I'm the author of TFA and I must completely agree with you on this point. Is there a human-friendly VCS out there? I don't care how featured or not it is, as Git can be configured to pull from it (a la git-svn). Just anything that non-tech-related persons (or even just non-coders!) can use without wanting to pull their hair out and feeling very stupid? For example, one of my software products has translations powered…
Why not just go up to github and ask them to make a web interface for non nerds? It's half way there already with editing in webpages and what not.
Re: The Case for a Git-Powered Project Gutenberg
#6Given the requirement that non-technical users should be able to use it, a wiki seems like a better model: GUI editing and version control.
Re: The Case for a Git-Powered Project Gutenberg
#7There's no need to wait for central blessing. Just do it. It wouldn't take much scripting work to treat the existing PG as just another branch that you can periodically merge on to your trunk. And if they decide they like it, they can switch to it easily later.
Re: The Case for a Git-Powered Project Gutenberg
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm the author of TFA and I must completely agree with you on this point. Is there a human-friendly VCS out there? I don't care how featured or not it is, as Git can be configured to pull from it (a la git-svn). Just anything that non-tech-related persons (or even just non-coders!) can use without wanting to pull their hair out and feeling very stupid? For example, one of my software products has translations powered…
Why not just go up to github and ask them to make a web interface for non nerds? It's half way there already with editing in webpages and what not.
Oh it's nowhere near halfway there. I think the idea of using git is a fine one, but some software engineering is very much required. Ideally the project would work for all phases including pushing updated copies to consumers. Once you think in those terms you start approaching a product that's going to work for non technical editors and writers.
A customized book reading application that allow critical readers to make marginal notes and corrections, and see and rate other people's marginal notes and corrections would be the ticket.
Re: The Case for a Git-Powered Project Gutenberg
#9Given the requirement that non-technical users should be able to use it, a wiki seems like a better model: GUI editing and version control.
How well do concepts like forking and branching work with wikis, though? You can create categories and place the pages in them (to put the different editions for each title), but you can't really "link" revisions and branches to one another or indicate where they were derived from. And forking is absolutely out of the question.
Re: The Case for a Git-Powered Project Gutenberg
#10Given the requirement that non-technical users should be able to use it, a wiki seems like a better model: GUI editing and version control.
How well do concepts like forking and branching work with wikis, though? You can create categories and place the pages in them (to put the different editions for each title), but you can't really "link" revisions and branches to one another or indicate where they were derived from. And forking is absolutely out of the question.
That is a limitation, but I'm not sure the marginal benefit of forking and merging functionality justifies the significant added complexity. Each edition gets its own page, and the revision history of each edition reflects versioning.
On the rare occasion that changes in one edition need to cross over to another, a non-technical user should be able to copy/paste the changes across the two edit pages.