Provided that somehow this will (slowly, based on available time of maven
devs) propagate back to the official Maven docs
On 11/12/05, Arik Kfir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Although I'm not part of the original discussion, big +100 from me :)
>
>
> On 11/12/05, Alexander Hars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Jason,
> >
> > Thank you for setting up the mavenusers space on confluence. While this
> > solution is certainly better for integrating the documentation with
> > Maven, it has the disadvantage that it significantly raises the bar for
> > anyone who wants to contribute.
> >
> > For example, unregistered users can't see its content, so they will not
> > be drawn to improve on the documentation in the confluence wiki. In
> > addition, anyone wishing to make a small contribution, will need to
> > register, then send you an email, wait for the confirmation -- which
> > will come quickly, I know, but will not be immediate. Most users will
> > not bother.
> >
> > Let me give a few examples of possible user contributions that would not
> >
> > make it into a registered-users-only wiki:
> > 1. Someone asked in the mailing lists about which archetypes are
> > available by default with maven. Brett answered that by providing a
> > useful link to ibiblio.
> > I thought that this would be useful information for me, followed the
> > link and made a mental note to check back the mailing list when I need
> > this info sometimes in the future. When we started the discussion on the
> > wiki, I just went to the wiki, added three or four lines for the
> > archetypes I had found when following the link. Now I know, where to
> > find it.
> > 2. I was looking through the guide to creating sites. There is a link
> > to a description ("A full reference of the APT Format is available").
> > The link is dead.
> > Of course I looked around a little more and found the full guide to the
> > apt format. Of course I didn't bother sending this information to the
> > mailing list. It looks like nit-picking but a wiki page would be ideal
> > to put this information.
> > 3. Yesterday Wendy Smoak noted in the mailing list that the guide for
> > creating archetypes states that the <id> tag for the archetype.xml
> > should be the same as the <artifactId> but that this is not the case for
> >
> > one of the plugins he used so the statement must be incorrect. It is
> > very unlikely that an observation like this will be caught if we don't
> > let the user who observes it contribute it easily.
> >
> > I know that you have worked hard at the documentation for Maven. But
> > Maven is huge and complex. It is very difficult to put everything that
> > users need into writing. And it is probably difficult for any
> > experienced maven user - let alone developer - to understand how hard it
> > is to learn Maven.
> >
> > In the past few weeks I have more than once regretted starting with
> > Maven. It is a great tool, but whatever I start with, I find that it is
> > so difficult to answer the basic questions that arise for the newbie.
> > And I know that I am not the only one. It should not be like that
> > (please don't take this as a criticism of the developers, I just think
> > that there must be better ways to involve all of us in augmenting the
> > documentation).
> >
> > Would you see a big problem if we started a trial with the Wiki? There
> > is not much that we can loose. If nobody contributes or it really gets
> > defaced all the time, we just stop. We don't loose anything. On the
> > other hand, maybe we really get some users involved who submit snippets
> > of insights and we reduce the learning curve.
> >
> > Would you really object if we wanted to launch a trial balloon for
> > linking Maven documentation with the wiki?
> >
> > - Alexander
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
