Twenty years ago I had a hobby interest in C – but not C++ – programming (which I still find interesting but have largely forgotten). From then until 18 months ago I was a Solaris / Linux sysadmin. I won’t even call myself a Windows admin, since a piece of paper and admin rights do not an admin make (despite what my managers thought)…
At any rate, I say that to show just how non-applicable any “knowledge” I still have is to image processing in C++
I have neither the interest nor the knowledge to fork RawPedia. My thought for this doc was to cover the differences between ART and RT, with only a thin veneer of further information. Reading RawPedia and then mentally “applying” the ART changes (from whatever source) would be the suggested process.
I would definitely like others to directly contribute – Not through me. I have no sense of ownership, so it’s fair game to anyone.* As stated upthread, it started as semi-random notes for myself, then was expanded. As such, maybe it’ll serve as a kick-starter for further documentation. Of course it’s @agriggio 's decision where it goes,if anywhere. I certainly don’t see myself as “author” (except the wrong parts ) since I just collected it from elsewhere.
I think any serious effort at “official” ART documentation* (i.e., “ARTPedia” level) should start clean, with more thought-out goals, design and structure. This doc is probably too uneven for much growth.
* Anything the community does is, of course, within of @agriggio’s discretion. He’s clearly stated how he feels about the software and his approach to documentation, which is all good. I assume (??) at most he’ll serve as curator / editor of community-submitted content, getting involved possibly only to the point of identifying / correcting errors.
“Forking” rawpedia will be rough until its a Hugo site. I’m not sure how you’d fork a media wiki site.
We can, of course, formulate the markdown @lphilpot has provided into a Hugo site, as we have done for many many things in the greater Foss photographic community. It’d then be hosted on a git forge (bit bucket?) which provides access control. It can either be published on the forge or on the pixls infrastructure.
My only comment would be to reiterate: The reference is what it is and hopefully it’s useful within reason. But it’s no RawPedia and if there are bigger plans I recommend more groundwork first.
Just a note to other users here - If anyone wants to document the half-dozen or so remaining "TODO"s, feel free. With enough jiggery-pokery I can usually get those parts of ART to respond appropriately (e.g., local editing tools) but properly documenting them is beyond me at this point.