On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:39 AM, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 03:51 -0700, Kevin Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 02:08 -0700, Kevin Brown wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > What I'm still very hopeful to see is a Wiki system (any > > > > flavor will do) for Shindig. > > > > > > > > The lack of documentation and possibilities for people to > > > > contribute too- has really held our adoptation back a bit, > and > > > > caused many duplicate threads on the same subjects to happen. > > > > > > > > On the other hand i remember infrastructure@ saying that a > > > > zone should not be used for anything important? > > > > > > > > Yeah, I'd be cautious about anything that needs to persist data on > the > > > > zone. > > > > > > That is not entirely correct. :-) Your zone will not suddenly vanish or > > > being wiped. However, any substantial service for a project (e.g. a doc > > > site, downloads, you name it) should at some point be migrated off a > > > zone and onto infrastructure proper. Zones are project-maintained and > > > running stuff off a zone means that there is e.g. no mirroring of > > > content available. Also, I'm not sure if Zones are backed up at all. > > > > > > A zone is intended to run all the developer/committer related support > > > stuff like e.g. continuous build. It would be fine BTW to run a sample > > > container on the zone if you slap a .htaccess file on top of it (run > > > Apache in front of Tomcat) or request container authorization (with > > > straight Tomcat) and allow only committers/developers access to the > > > container. > > > > > > The problem is scalability inside the Apache infrastructure, not > running > > > services. The zone machines are shared machines that don't serve for a > > > single project. > > > > > > > > > > A hosted wiki would probably work. google sites might work ok for > > > > this, though I still prefer something like MediaWiki in general. > > > > > > Don't go there. We have two working Wiki infrastructures (Confluence > and > > > MoinMoin) and we have our very own JSPWiki in incubation if you feel > > > like setting up a Wiki on the Zone (which is fine, as long as only > > > committers have write access to it). I can understand infra to object > to > > > yet another wiki-flavor-of-the-day. > > > > > > It's 'committer access only' that's an issue for this. We're already > using > > confluence, and the inability for non-committers to edit documentation is > a > > blocker. > > As Henning says, we have enough unmaintained wikis at Apache and don't > need more! > > I'm afraid I missed the context for the desire for a wiki. I'd > appreciate some filling in :-) > > Basically, the options as it currently stands are: > > 1) A moin wiki, which anyone can create an account on. It is just a > wiki, as the legal rights to the content cannot be validated, and > therefore cannot be included in a release That sounds like what we want. > > 2) A confluence wiki, used in the same way as above - non-committers > can write to the wiki, but the content cannot be published on an > apache.org site nor included in a release > 3) A confluence wiki with controlled subscription - subscriptions here > are restricted to those that have signed a CLA. Typically that is > committers, however, anyone can fax in an iCLA if they wish. This > way, Apache knows the legality of the content, and can therefore > republish it without any legal risk > > Do any of those fit the scenario you are proposing? > > If folks want infrastructure stuff, I'd encourage you to subscribe to > the infrastructure list and talk about it there. Yes, it can be hard to > get stuff up and running at Apache, but once it is running, it is much > more likely to keep running even after you have lost interest in it. > > Regards, Upayavira > >
