Brett, Thanks for your response.
You have confirmed my worst fears about the documentation solution. Oh well, all those future edits I had in mind, gone. Thanks, Paul On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Brett Meyer <br...@3riverdev.com> wrote: > Hey Paul, I asked the same question a couple of weeks ago -- Claus reminded > me about the move to asciidoc in the central repo: > https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/master/docs/user-manual/en > > However, we might consider at least adding a note to the tops of the current > Confluence docs (assuming there's a way to do that without editing every > single page) mentioning the stale state and future plans. Better yet, could > we consider setting up a redirect sooner rather than later, even if that's > temporarily to GitHub (maybe > https://github.com/apache/camel/blob/master/docs/user-manual/en/SUMMARY.md)? > > > > On 1/18/18 4:34 PM, Paul Gale wrote: >> >> Can someone with the relevant privileges investigate why snippets >> being referenced by the Camel wiki appear to be universally broken and >> what can be done to fix them? They are an integral part of the >> documentation and need to work. At a glance I can see that most >> snippets reference source files from an SVN repository which would >> explain the breakage. However, I don't know where they should point >> instead as removing the word 'trunk' in the file path doesn't fix it. >> It would seem that snippet support is no longer available - I don't >> see any reference to them in the Atlassian documentation. Perhaps said >> support came from a plugin that's no longer installed? Guessing. Any >> info about that would also be appreciated. >> >> I understand that the current Confluence backed wiki is generated via >> some scheduled process. Can that process itself be documented and >> access to it granted to the entire community? I would have thought >> opening up access would increase the likelihood of it getting fixed. >> I've edited a number of pages on both the ActiveMQ and Camel wikis, >> however I am not a committer (and have no plans to become one) and >> therefore cannot step in to fix it when it breaks. >> >> I recall hearing plans that Confluence would be replaced by some other >> documentation, perhaps a wiki on Github (ugh). What's the latest on >> that front? >> >> I do hope that whatever solution is settled on does not require one to >> be an Apache committer in order to edit the wiki documentation. Such a >> requirement would be unacceptable to me. However, it seems to be >> likely based on the solutions I've heard proposed elsewhere (assuming >> the Camel community follows suite with the ActiveMQ community who >> appear set on such an approach - reasonable assumption given the >> overlap between the respective communities) that documentation be >> embedded in the sourcecode, extracted using a tool that would then >> generate the site, or something similar. Any approach along those >> lines would likely reduce the pool size of available wiki editors to >> just those with commit rights. Given that committers have openly >> stated their reluctance/dislike/opposition to ever writing >> documentation then such solutions seem unwise and detrimental to the >> community as a whole. I'm not convinced by the logic used to justify >> these solutions that because the documentation is inline with the code >> that it's more likely to be kept up to date and accurate. I therefore >> strongly urge the community to reconsider. >> >> Thanks, >> Paul > > >
