Hi Jonathan, I'm not asking for updates on the wiki, but for it to stay up and linked to until the docs have been converted from it/moved over.
The 0-10 broker implementation is the main priority for now and requiring much effort, the docs will need to wait a while until thats in good shape. Realistically, a few weeks more work on the broker I think. I understand you want the java team to work on this - there are other Java devs on this list who might have time to do this though ? >From a time point of view, I'm not objecting to your plans just asking for the wiki to stay put a while. For anyone labouring under the misapprehension that docs don't matter to me, I wrote quite a few of the Java user docs ;-) Marnie On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Jonathan Robie <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Marnie, > > I think we need to have the archives available, but we also need to be > able to use qpid.apache.org for the main website. > > OK if we move the existing wiki to qpid.apache.org/archives? > > Also, I converted quite a bit of the Java broker documentation here: > > > http://ci.apache.org/projects/qpid/books/0.6/AMQP-Messaging-Broker-Java-Book/html/index.html > > http://ci.apache.org/projects/qpid/books/0.6/AMQP-Messaging-Broker-Java-Book/pdf/AMQP-Messaging-Broker-Java-Book.pdf > > The source files for this are in qpid/doc/book, you can make it using > > $ make java > > Someone really needs to go over that and determine what is really > needed, what is outdated, etc. The content was taken directly from the > Wiki. The main cleanup needed is probably: > > * Make sure tables, examples, etc. all have titles > * Fix links (the error messages show you which ones are broken) > * Apply updates that have been made since the original conversion > > I'm happy enough to have a pointer to the Wiki archives as of a given > date - in fact, the site already has those pointers. I'm not as happy > about continuing to reflect updates, for several reasons: > > 1. I've already done quite a bit of work to get the Java documentation > mostly converted, and I would really like to see someone from the Java > broker team take that over and finish it. Nobody has even reviewed this > in any depth. If this documentation is out of date, it needs to be > fixed. > > 2. If we keep making our updates to the Wiki instead of to the > documentation, that's building a backlog of work for someone to do > eventually. I think it would be better to get the existing Java > documentation up to date and maintain it. That also has the advantage > that it always corresponds to a specific version of the software. > > 3. I think it's confusing for users to have substantially the same > information in two places, with minor differences depending on what's > been updated. > > 4. I've already said I don't want to do more work to maintain the Wiki, > which is a little broken, since we're moving to the new system. > > If the documentation for the Java Broker isn't the "real" documentation, > we should probably just yank it from the documentation page and point to > the Wiki. But I think that would tend to make the Java broker look like > a second class citizen, especially as we contribute documentation to the > C++ broker from Red Hat docs. > > Would it be realistic for someone from your team review the Java broker > docs that have already been converted, and start to think about how much > effort would be required to move to the new system? > > Jonathan > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > >
