I agree with Tomek and feel Github issues ("meta"-issue) is a better place
than Github Wiki.On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 11:26 AM Tomasz Urbaszek <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 >
