Mithril.js: Make the wiki useful

[dontwork]

As of yesterday nearly all of the content on the Mithril wiki is outdated and I'm bringing this up here so we can discuss what to do with all the resources which point to 0.2.* projects.

[barneycarroll]

cc @CarlMungazi who's been floating some good ideas on this subject for a while.

We should make sure to preserve current wiki content for posterity too.

[CarlMungazi]

Thanks @barneycarroll. My idea is related to the 'Who uses mithril' section. We could have mini-interviews/articles with people explaining how they use mithril in production. I think it would provide useful insight to mithril newcomers (and current developers) as well as helping us maintain the 'buzz' from yesterday's launch. I'm happy to look at this as interviewing people is something I enjoy!

On a more general note, is it better to create an 'archive' section for 0.2* material and then have a new section for 1.* stuff, or are we better off keeping it as it is and then updating it as new stuff is created?

[isiahmeadows]

I feel that, at the very least, it should be marked as 0.2. I like @CarlMungazi's suggestion of putting it in a dedicated archive, since many of those are highly specific to the 0.2 API (e.g. config work).

[balupton]

I'm new to Mithril, looking at due to the v1 release - came from many years of Backbone, and some recent React fiddling, which I'm not to happy about due to certain silly things - however, react and vue both have amazing ecosystems - which seems to be where Mithril is lacking - despite it seems with Mithril v1, it is super nice.

Would be nice for @isiahmeadows suggestion, of just cloning out the current repo, pushing it up to its own archive repo, and starting a new one (or iterating from the old) for v1.

Tying those two paragraphs together, it would be nice for the wiki to go a lot into sample projects, ecosystem libraries, and apps I can checkout - with one's currently active and maintained.

The current wiki also seems to have a lot of snippet pages. I'm not sure a wiki is the best place for snippets. Perhaps have links to codepen or runkit or the like instead.

---

One of the silly thing in React are these errors

which require me to reformat my code in a silly way - spending more time wrestling and comprehending and less time being productive

Having used things like CoffeeKup/TeaCup for years, such an error message is just silly

---

I should also mention that I'm using https://github.com/zeit/next.js for React, which is making React as enjoyable as React can be. https://nuxtjs.org is the vue equivalent.

[isiahmeadows]

@balupton

One of the silly thing in React are these errors [...]

Another reason why JSX sucks. IMHO, React should just know to drop them.

[isiahmeadows]

Closing, since this issue has not been updated in over a month, and typically, issues inactive for that long do not usually produce any action. If you feel something in Mithril needs added or changed, please file a new issue.

[balupton]

@isiahmeadows how would one act on this? it seems the proposal is to dump the current wiki in a repository on a 0.2 branch, and then set master of the wiki as the current branch for the 1.0 series.

[isiahmeadows]

@balupton I closed it because the conversation pretty much died. And GH wikis aren't actually Git repos, so there is no master to set.

I'll reopen, but it's low priority. And to be honest, most of the frequented content within the wiki should really be in docs, like links to third party tools. In particular, many of them have already been updated to 1.x.

[balupton]

And GH wikis aren't actually Git repos, so there is no master to set.

Not sure what you mean here, as:

git clone https://github.com/lhorie/mithril.js.wiki.git

Of course, no branch support.

---

I'll reopen, but it's low priority. And to be honest, most of the frequented content within the wiki should really be in docs, like links to third party tools. In particular, many of them have already been updated to 1.x.

Good point. The only page of the wiki I actually care about is the 3rd party tools and showcase. Which can just be divided into a 1.x section, and a 0.x section, rather than having its own branch.

[isiahmeadows]

@balupton All these days, and I never knew that... Interesting...