I was only able to comment on the JIRA issue. How does one reopen it? Thanks Troy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Masanz, James J. Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:33 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Apache Confluence wiki for documentation?
No objection from me for Confluence. Thanks for the investigation! The contents for 3.0-incubating will definitely need a lot of updating but I'm hoping for 2.6-incubating it won't need much. -- James > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected] > rg] > On Behalf Of Chen, Pei > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:26 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Apache Confluence wiki for documentation? > > No strong objections from me... But I think the contents itself needs > updating though as I think there have been/will be significant changes > to the paths/usage since the ASF move, etc. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bleeker, Troy C. [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:13 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Apache Confluence wiki for documentation? > > > > I looked at the markdown syntax of the ASF CMS that is where the > > cTAKES Apache site is built. Using this for doc would mean migration > > from our existing Confluence. Internet search revels this is not > straight forward. > > Others have issues with broken tables and what was macros. We don't > > need the macros much but the tables are key to the existing doc. > > > > ASF CMS also has editing/staging/production. While it sounds nice, > > there is a lag between. Maybe not big but if we don't need the > > function... Confluence has version control for every single change > > that is made. You can revert back easily. > > > > The WYSIWYG editor is super limited with markdown syntax ASF CMS. > > Tables don't even exist. > > > > Since we have a previous Confluence investment and due to the > > differences noted above, could I suggest/ask that we go ahead with > > requesting the ASF Confluence be set up? (Reopen > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5185) We should only > > need an export from the old and import to the new. I have done this > > with Confluence before as long as I have admin access. Close version > > proximity of Confluence would be good though. cTAKES doc is > > currently in > a Confluence 4.0 setup. > > This would at least get us started as opposed being on the fence in > > discussion. We can continue the discussion of ship/no ship of doc in > parallel. > > > > Thanks > > Troy > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ctakes-dev-return-422- > > [email protected] > > [mailto:ctakes-dev-return- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Chen, > > Pei > > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:59 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Apache Confluence wiki for documentation? > > > > Good points... I wonder if we could easily take an export/snapshot > > of the online .mdtext,html,wiki, etc. version during build/release time. > > If it seems reasonable, we could investigate creating a script or > > maven goal to export from the content /site/ directory as an example > > (assuming content is there; which is probably more important than > > the delivery mechanism at this point)? > > Just throwing out the option... > > > > My biggest pet peeve in the past with open software is that detailed > > technical documentation never seems to be up-to-date with code that > > I end up just viewing the source anyway. But a simple/general end > > user guide, quick start examples, FAQ's/known gotchas, are always helpful. > > My 1/2 cent- but I'll leave it up to the experts/volunteers in this > realm... > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jörn Kottmann [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 5:43 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: Apache Confluence wiki for documentation? > > > > > > There are always smaller issues coming up when you release something. > > > If there is a bigger issue the best thing in my experience is to > > > just release again and get it fixed. Doesn't matter if it is > > > something in your software or the documentation. For me its > > > important that i can easily access the documentation for the > > > software > version I am running. > > > > > > When I use Open Source software which is not super stable yet and > > > I have an issue I usually try out the trunk version and see how > > > things work there, so in that case I would likely see your > > > documentation > update. > > > > > > Jörn > > > > > > On 09/14/2012 04:39 PM, Bleeker, Troy C. wrote: > > > > Would you still say that if you knew that an issue with the > > > > product you just > > > spent 2 hours trying to work-around something could have been > > > avoided if you were looking at the latest documentation? The > > > difference in "ease of access" is minor, no? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Troy > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: ctakes-dev-return-388- > > > [email protected] > > > > [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-388- > > > [email protected] > > > > rg] On Behalf Of Jörn Kottmann > > > > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:27 AM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: Apache Confluence wiki for documentation? > > > > > > > > On 09/14/2012 04:19 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote: > > > >> I also prefer to not distribute the documentation with the release. > > > > I actually prefer to have the documentation included in the > > > > distribution, > > > because then I can always easily access the documentation which > > > matches the version I am working with and do not have to go > > > somewhere > > to find it. > > > > > > > > Jörn
