47 ms·
> I've said it before, but I think this move was a mistake. They've thrown away the benefits of a incredible wiki-based platform (where changes were pretty much
by searchableguy 6y ago
> I've said it before, but I think this move was a mistake. They've thrown away the benefits of a incredible wiki-based platform (where changes were pretty much instantaneous and any of us could easily make a difference to the docs!), the (actually pretty decent) WYSIWYG editor and an overall frictionless editing experience and replaced it with what, some (not even Markdown) document files in a GitHub repository. I honestly believe this will dissuade people from making small, quick fixes and ultimately drive away contributors.
Yeah, I really agree with this. Having built a website which relied on people submitting PRs to add their content on GitHub - I wouldn't do it again. It's a lot of friction for both the maintainers and people contributing.
- peterbe 6y agoEvery story has at least two sides. Check out some of the amazing PRs people have been able to do recently on https://github.com/mdn/content/pulls https://github.com/mdn/content/pulls Being able to do scripts or grep + sed or other advances bulk edits is really cool. E.g. https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/152 https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/152
- peterbe 6y agoAlso, keep in mind all the tooling GitHub offers. Comments with reactions, quoting, permalinks, blocking, etc. Yes, it can be built in-house but would cost a fortune.