I see the advantage of having no comment in wiki but in the longer run, I think this will create confusion. Where should I discuss a particular thing? On devlist? Slack? In issue? How should a new contributor know this?
After giving some thought to that I'm leaning towards the meta-issue: - they are clear (no need to go to wiki) - give possibilit to link other issues/PRs that shows their content on hover - this is great advantage as we can see how our work is interconnected - having an issue make it explicit to where contributors should leave their comments No matter what we decide, we should thrive to limit the places where information is available. Bests, Tomek On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 12:00 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote: > > Question. Should we move over Airflow 2.0 Status and other "permanent" > information to Github Wiki? See here for example: > https://github.com/apache/airflow/wiki/Airflow-2.0 > > The discussion originated by Kamil creating an issue for Airflow 2.0 - > which was essentially overriding the page we had in > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+2.0+-+Planning > and adding more "status" information in > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10085. This was more of a > "meta" issue as it has a lot of unrelated issues / projects mentioned > - the only common thing for those was that it was "Airflow 2.0". But > we already have "Milestone 2.0" and CWIKI page. > > My proposal was that since we have 2.0 Milestone already we should use > this one to mark issues for 2.0 and in order to keep > Roadmap/Plans/Status we can use Github's Wiki instead. IMHO it is much > better as it does not allow comments - which is good IMHO. For this > jind of "permanent" pages, comments and discussion should happen for > the individual issues not for the page itself (especially when you do > not have in-line comments). > > And this page should always be "current" - with the old roadmap in > CWIKI and the issue 10085 when you add comments, you quickly lose > track whether the comments are more important than the overview, and > how accurate the "overview" is. When you just edit the wiki - you > always do it deliberately - because you want to update status rather > than make a comment or discuss, > > So I created this as copy of the issue: > https://github.com/apache/airflow/wiki/Airflow-2.0 so that we can > compare it - can you please compare it with > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10085 and voice your opinion > what's better? > > I think it's also a great opportunity to archive a lot of the old and > not up-to-date from the old Wiki and migrate it to GitHub. We could > move AIPs to Github issues (as needed) - AIPS are fine for > discussion/issues/comments, but when they got implemented we could > move it over to wiki as "Implemented" status for history. > > Let me know what you think. > > BTW. PLEASE do NOT comment on that #10085 issue (it's now locked and > closed). I accidentally (shame on me) notified all Apache Committers. > Happened twice today (also for someone else) so I opened a ticket to > Infra to restrict that (If only possible) because it's all too easy to > notify everyone @Apache). If you comment there 3K+ people get > notified. > > But feel free to upvote the infra ticket: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-20623 > > > J. > > > > -- > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129
