+1 patchable site.
But IMO the more we leave publicly editable in the wiki the better.
-Jonathan
On Mar 29, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Johan Oskarsson <jo...@oskarsson.nu> wrote:
We now have a first version of the site running:
http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra
However, Matthieu commented on the wiki ticket here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15
that he wants a decision on the site's future before moving on.
The two options as far as I know:
1. Store the site and any source material in svn, publish to the
apache.org site. It could be raw html, forrest xml+generated html, a
script that generates html or something similar.
2. Use a wiki as the site. Confluence?
Personally I prefer option 1, so we can accept website patches from
anyone and leave the wiki as a publicly editable place for everyone
to share information.
I don't care if we use Forrest or not for the site, it was just an
easy way to get started and a lot of Apache projects use it already.
If option 1 is chosen we can discuss what tool to use later.
What does everyone think? Should we initiate a vote about it?
/Johan
Sandeep Tata wrote:
I think the Forrest site is great to start with. If you check it into
the repository, others will be able to contribute patches much like
code and the burden of building up the website will not fall on just
the committers.
A publicly editable wiki might work too, but if only the committers
have edit permissions -- much of the work for building the site falls
on them. We want to quickly get to a point where the committers can
review patches and guide the community in adding value to the code.
Not be bogged down in editing websites :)
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.r...@gmail.com
> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Avinash Lakshman <
avinash.laksh...@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess. Isn't that easier? Is there something else that is the
norm?
No norm, just several different options. I personally like when
the source
used to generate the site can be checked in the repository but
that's mostly
a matter of taste. This for example is generated with Forrest:
http://ant.apache.org/
http://lucene.apache.org/
This is generated by a set of Ruby scripts from Textile files:
http://buildr.apache.org/
And this is generated from Confluence using custom templates:
http://geronimo.apache.org/
http://ode.apache.org/
FWIW, a Forrest site has already been contributed so that could be
used to
start with until a sexier option is implemented?
Matthieu
Avinash
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.r...@gmail.com
>wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Avinash Lakshman <
avinash.laksh...@gmail.com> wrote:
I just got myself added as an "Author" maybe couple of days
ago. I will
start working on it. But there are other things too on my
plate. I will
get
around to it soon
So does that mean that you plan to use the wiki as a website?
Matthieu
Avinash
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Sandeep Tata <sandeep.t...@gmail.com
wrote:
Prashant, Avinash, Jiansheng...
Any update on the website?
It has been several weeks since the project got into the
incubator,
but we still don't seem to have a website.
I think using Johan's Forrest generate site to start with is a
good
idea. Are you guys considering anything else? What's holding
us up? Do
you need any help with this?
Sandeep
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <
matthieu.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Johan Oskarsson <
jo...@oskarsson.nu
wrote:
Ok, I understand.
On the topic of website I have suggested and created a basic
Forrest
generated site here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2
Nice!
No response from any of the committers on the jira or on the
lists
yet
though.
I believe they weren't subscribed yet :) So what do other folks
think
about
the website and using Forrest at least to get started?
Cheers,
Matthieu
/Johan
Matthieu Riou wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Johan Oskarsson <
jo...@oskarsson.nu
wrote:
Out of curiosity is there a reason to use a wiki without
public
edit
access? Apache Hadoop, for example, have had one that is
editable
by
anyone and they have not had any problems afaik. On the
contrary
I
believe a lot of useful updates wouldn't happen with a wiki
restricted
to committers only.
I've started this way just because I don't know how the
wiki is
going
to
be
used by the project yet.
Some projects use the Confluence wiki as their website and
even
bundle
it
as
part of their distribution. In that context, only committers
should
be
able
to contribute. I don't think it's the case for Hadoop, they
have
a
separate
Forrest-generated website.
So depending on how the wiki is going to be used and how the
Apache
Casssandra website will be built, we can decide to have it
work
either
way.
Cheers,
Matthieu
/Johan
Matthieu Riou wrote:
Hi guys,
I've just created a new Confluence space for Cassandra,
Avinash's
planning
to use it and most projects find it handy anyway. If other
committers
want
edit access to it, please send me your Confluence user
name. If
you
don't
have one yet, just register there:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence
Cheers,
Matthieu
