Re: projects.gnome.org versus live.gnome.org

[Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs igalia com>]

Hey Dave, all.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 09:45:03 +0100, Dave Neary <dneary gnome org> 
wrote:
> Hi Joanie,
>
> On 11/24/2011 06:18 PM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
> > Periodically I wonder about projects.gnome.org versus 
> > live.gnome.org:
> > Some modules and groups use one, some use the other, others use 
> > both. As
> > I'm currently in the process of cleaning up the Orca wiki (and 
> > recently
> > did the same for the Accessibility Team wiki), I figured I'd wonder
> > aloud this time: Are there any plans, expectations, etc. regarding 
> > one
> > versus the other?
>
> projects.g.o is a set of web-pages where you control everything that
> gets published - html, css, javascript, etc. It gives more
> flexibility, if you want to do some layout that's hard in the GNOME
> wiki. The wiki is an easy lo-fi way for a project to have a web
> presence, but because anyone can change pages, it's sometimes harder
> to maintain (you might want to look at MoinMoin ACLs as a way to 
> limit
> who can change your project's wiki page).
>
> A projects page is stored in Git, and deployed directly on commit
> with a post-commit hook. So editors need access to Git, and need to 
> be
> comfortable editing web pages. The wiki lowers the barrier to editing
> the web page, but, well, it's a wiki...

Yeah, I've been using both p.g.o and l.g.o for Accessibility and Orca. 
I'll definitely check out MoinMoin ACLs. Thank for that tip!

But really what I was wondering is: Are projects encouraged to do 
"whatever floats their boat" with respect to these tools? For instance, 
on a couple of different occasions I've made casual reference to 
projects.gnome.org and had someone comment "I thought p.g.o. was 
'deprecated'." And then there's this (out of date, but still hanging 
around) page: https://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/WikiMigration.

Take care.
--joanie