Why don't we set up an official wiki for GCC documentation?

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sep 9, 2004, at 1:24 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> It is for gcc developers, and those learning to develop in gcc, so 
>> that they
>> can understand the internals, the status of things, etc, in a 
>> collaborative
>> environment.
>
> And it seems to work reasonably well for that sort of thing.  I just 
> don't
> think the original poster's
>
>> The documentation of GCC is a heavily disccussed issue here. I
>> strongly feel wiki would be a solution for it.
>
> bears much relation to how it is useful - the problems with the main
> documentation (manuals and comments) are not something wiki will help
> address, those with projects lists might be though the right relation
> between projects listed in wiki and listed as bugs in Bugzilla needs
> experimentation.

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think wiki is a good solution for our 
documentation right now. Our documentation is mostly in .texi, which 
isn't hard to modify at all.
It's more a social and long standing gcc problem, etc, as you pointed 
out

>
>> So people don't seem too concerned that the gccwiki is on dberlin.org
>
> I don't see that as a problem for the present use of the wiki.  It's an
> experiment with the addition of a particular tool to those for GCC
> development, such experiments are to be encouraged, and a move is 
> always
> possible in future anyway.
>

Right.
This is what i did with bugzilla, after all, so i figured i'd try out 
wiki.
So far, i think it's done fine. We get contributions, etc.
We'll see what it's like in a few months.