Re: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
On Aug 8, 2006, at 7:00 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote: The space naming convention would probably give us SHLx___ Do we want to have just one space, and use it like we use Moin, or do we want to push most of the project docs to the wiki? I don't know anything about Confluence so I can't comment on its usability or features, but I *love* the idea of using a wiki for doc. It's so much easier to contribute to. In the second case we might want SHLxDEV for our notes on how to use Maven and Subversion for various things, and another one for docs that get exported and included in the distribution. I'm ok with that so long as we don't make it too hard for people to know where to contribute or look for info. Greg
Re: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
Confluence as documentation is excellent. We've moved all of the Apache Podling Cayenne's documentation to Confluence over the last year or so. Just be aware that infrastructure frowns on using Confluence for anything other than a static website (or document) generator (for example, using it as a general purpose wiki) because of technical issues with Confluence. On 8/9/06, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 8, 2006, at 7:00 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote: The space naming convention would probably give us SHLx___ Do we want to have just one space, and use it like we use Moin, or do we want to push most of the project docs to the wiki? I don't know anything about Confluence so I can't comment on its usability or features, but I *love* the idea of using a wiki for doc. It's so much easier to contribute to. In the second case we might want SHLxDEV for our notes on how to use Maven and Subversion for various things, and another one for docs that get exported and included in the distribution. I'm ok with that so long as we don't make it too hard for people to know where to contribute or look for info. Greg
RE: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
+1 I agree that it's pretty superior, and I love the idea of being able to easily contribute docs. ~~~ Kito D. Mann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info phone: +1 203-653-2989 fax: +1 203-653-2988 -Original Message- From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 7:24 PM To: dev@shale.apache.org Subject: Confluence Wiki Anyone? What do people think about setting up a confluence wiki for Shale? Wendy tipped me off about cwiki.apache.org. Apparently its up and running now. Personally I think Confluence is a lot better then the current wiki. Sean
Re: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
So there would be 2 wikis? One for official documenation (confluence) and one for community based documentation (current)? To me the current Shale website is a bit overwhelming with information. I like the idea of moving all of the getting started docs to confluence and organizing them by subproject. We just need a prominent link on the main page to direct users to. The Getting Started link seems to be a growing trend and its the first thing I look for when I start with a new technology. -1 for separate confluence wikis for each version. I think we can add version-appropriate notes where needed and keep stuff in one wiki. Maybe separate sections for each version if there are major installation gotchas but definitely not a separate wiki. For release plans, I definitely think a separate page for each version would be fine. Sean On 8/9/06, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Confluence as documentation is excellent. We've moved all of the Apache Podling Cayenne's documentation to Confluence over the last year or so. Just be aware that infrastructure frowns on using Confluence for anything other than a static website (or document) generator (for example, using it as a general purpose wiki) because of technical issues with Confluence. On 8/9/06, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 8, 2006, at 7:00 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote: The space naming convention would probably give us SHLx___ Do we want to have just one space, and use it like we use Moin, or do we want to push most of the project docs to the wiki? I don't know anything about Confluence so I can't comment on its usability or features, but I *love* the idea of using a wiki for doc. It's so much easier to contribute to. In the second case we might want SHLxDEV for our notes on how to use Maven and Subversion for various things, and another one for docs that get exported and included in the distribution. I'm ok with that so long as we don't make it too hard for people to know where to contribute or look for info. Greg
Re: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
On 8/9/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So there would be 2 wikis? One for official documenation (confluence) and one for community based documentation (current)? Yes, and only then if the confluence usage is as a static page generator rather than as a wiki. I'm pretty sure that this is how cwiki is set up. I think you get direct confluence access when editing, but are redirected to a static web page when viewing.
Re: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
On 8/9/06, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we need two, it can be two Conflucence 'spaces'. I'm not planning to do anything else on Moin Moin (the current wiki) if Confluence is available. I believe the infrastructure group's concerns with Confluence have been addressed by a new plugin that exports static html. (Apparently Confluence pages aren't cacheable, so there was concern about the load if it had to generate every page every time.) If someone can stand the heat, it would be a good idea to get clarification on this from Infrastructure. The last postings I saw on the subject were that projects must use Moin Moin for a general wiki, but that it was allowable to use Confluence to generate static content like documentation. Another topic of concern was allowing people who have not been granted committer status the ability to edit the official documentation for a project.
RE: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
Another topic of concern was allowing people who have not been granted committer status the ability to edit the official documentation for a project. I'd vote for some sort of policy that allows non-committers (like myself) the ability to add to the docs. This is one of my chief complaints about some projects; a big problem is lack of documentation, but it's not easy for members of the user community to add documentation. ~~~ Kito D. Mann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info phone: +1 203-653-2989 fax: +1 203-653-2988
Re: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
Another topic of concern was allowing people who have not been granted committer status the ability to edit the official documentation for a project. We could limit this to just committers like we do now for the website (where the docs are now.) Ideally we could add people by invitation and this could be a stepping-stone to becoming a committer. Sean
Re: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
On 8/9/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another topic of concern was allowing people who have not been granted committer status the ability to edit the official documentation for a project. We could limit this to just committers like we do now for the website (where the docs are now.) Ideally we could add people by invitation and this could be a stepping-stone to becoming a committer. The point that was brought up was that if someone is able to edit the website (or official) documentation, they should already be a committer since that's what being a committer is :-)
Re: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
On 8/9/06, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/9/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another topic of concern was allowing people who have not been granted committer status the ability to edit the official documentation for a project. We could limit this to just committers like we do now for the website (where the docs are now.) Ideally we could add people by invitation and this could be a stepping-stone to becoming a committer. The point that was brought up was that if someone is able to edit the website (or official) documentation, they should already be a committer since that's what being a committer is :-) The project infrastructure at java.net recognizes Content Developer (read/write access to the website content) separate from Developer (read/write access to the repository as well as the website content). That distinction hasn't really existed in Apache projects, AFAIK, but there's an interesting opportunity to think about that approach with a controlled access area like a Confluence space. On the other hand, anyone I am willing to trust with the web content is also someone I would trust with repository access :-). Craig Craig
Re: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
On the other hand, anyone I am willing to trust with the web content is also someone I would trust with repository access :-). We should probably stick to the current Apache way whenever possible. Its not worth adding such a distinction if it gets us sidetracked from our main business. Better to add a few new committers who have demonstrated competence in Shale and expressed an interest in helping with the documentation. Craig Sean
Re: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
That's why I mentioned the pdf earlier. With Confluence, you could create a pdf of the current wiki docs at release time which would serve as (or contribute to) the documentation for that release. Each pdf would be verified and checked into svn and become part of the release as well as tag/branch. If people have a problem with opening and using a pdf, we could basically do the same thing with the static (cwiki generated) html files. Am I confusing anyone? -- James Mitchell 678.910.8017 On Aug 9, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Sean Schofield wrote: So there would be 2 wikis? One for official documenation (confluence) and one for community based documentation (current)? To me the current Shale website is a bit overwhelming with information. I like the idea of moving all of the getting started docs to confluence and organizing them by subproject. We just need a prominent link on the main page to direct users to. The Getting Started link seems to be a growing trend and its the first thing I look for when I start with a new technology. -1 for separate confluence wikis for each version. I think we can add version-appropriate notes where needed and keep stuff in one wiki. Maybe separate sections for each version if there are major installation gotchas but definitely not a separate wiki. For release plans, I definitely think a separate page for each version would be fine. Sean On 8/9/06, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Confluence as documentation is excellent. We've moved all of the Apache Podling Cayenne's documentation to Confluence over the last year or so. Just be aware that infrastructure frowns on using Confluence for anything other than a static website (or document) generator (for example, using it as a general purpose wiki) because of technical issues with Confluence. On 8/9/06, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 8, 2006, at 7:00 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote: The space naming convention would probably give us SHLx___ Do we want to have just one space, and use it like we use Moin, or do we want to push most of the project docs to the wiki? I don't know anything about Confluence so I can't comment on its usability or features, but I *love* the idea of using a wiki for doc. It's so much easier to contribute to. In the second case we might want SHLxDEV for our notes on how to use Maven and Subversion for various things, and another one for docs that get exported and included in the distribution. I'm ok with that so long as we don't make it too hard for people to know where to contribute or look for info. Greg
Re: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
On 8/8/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do people think about setting up a confluence wiki for Shale? Wendy tipped me off about cwiki.apache.org. Apparently its up and running now. Personally I think Confluence is a lot better then the current wiki. I wanted it from the beginning, but they were still working out the details. It seems to be available now, requests for new spaces and imports are being fulfilled. Take a look at how Geronimo is using it: http://cwiki.apache.org/geronimo/ They have a separate 'space' for the docs for each version, one for development, project management, knowledge base, and sandbox. The space naming convention would probably give us SHLx___ Do we want to have just one space, and use it like we use Moin, or do we want to push most of the project docs to the wiki? In the second case we might want SHLxDEV for our notes on how to use Maven and Subversion for various things, and another one for docs that get exported and included in the distribution. -- Wendy
Re: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
strong +1 on that. we use that at work. pretty awesome! On 8/8/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do people think about setting up a confluence wiki for Shale? Wendy tipped me off about cwiki.apache.org. Apparently its up and running now. Personally I think Confluence is a lot better then the current wiki. Sean -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Confluence Wiki Anyone?
While I tend to lean toward the 'use OSS when possible' side, Confluence is a sexy wiki. If we can get a confluence instance, how feasible would it be to: - move all the documentation to the wiki - have that content available as a PDF to replace what we moved We could even go so far as to commit the pdf to svn so we can version it along with the distributions. I see this as having several positive aspects. - we no longer have to publish the site documentation on every simple change - we can use that cool snippet plugin - those who prefer to grab a zip/pdf and run can do so (without having to build from src xdocs if offline) - there are more I'm sure -- James Mitchell 678.910.8017 On Aug 8, 2006, at 8:00 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote: On 8/8/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do people think about setting up a confluence wiki for Shale? Wendy tipped me off about cwiki.apache.org. Apparently its up and running now. Personally I think Confluence is a lot better then the current wiki. I wanted it from the beginning, but they were still working out the details. It seems to be available now, requests for new spaces and imports are being fulfilled. Take a look at how Geronimo is using it: http://cwiki.apache.org/ geronimo/ They have a separate 'space' for the docs for each version, one for development, project management, knowledge base, and sandbox. The space naming convention would probably give us SHLx___ Do we want to have just one space, and use it like we use Moin, or do we want to push most of the project docs to the wiki? In the second case we might want SHLxDEV for our notes on how to use Maven and Subversion for various things, and another one for docs that get exported and included in the distribution. -- Wendy
