Regardless of which wiki we use the documentation is in Forrest and
checked into SVN. Forrest is used both to write the docs (which are
versioned along with the code) as well as generating the
hadoop.apache.org web site. (trunk/src/docs) We have a tech writer who
is currently migrating the sourceforge documentation to forrest.
The wiki will be used to capture information which is specifically not
documentation; faq, policies, procedures, etc...
Doug Cutting wrote:
James Strachan wrote:
Tools like wikis are personal things; and folks tend to prefer to use
the tool they know.
That's a key point.
To make a switch you'd need:
1. Someone familiar with Confluence to lead the transition, convert the
existing website and wiki content, set up static export etc. Are you
2. Buy in from Zookeeper's primary contributors, who will end up
writing and maintaining the documentation (Pat, Ben, etc.). I don't
really count, since I'm mostly a kibitzer here.
Also, with Confluence export, how does one deal with versioning? A
convenience of keeping documentation in subversion is that it gets
versioned with releases. By maintaining the trunk documentation to
match the trunk implementation, we automatically get documentation that
matches each version, but we can still maintain the documentation in
release branches. I don't see how this would not add overhead with
Confluence exports. If Confluence always represented trunk, and we
exported at release branch points, then it would be hard to patch
branched documentation. Maintaining multiple branches in Confluence
would add management overhead, since these would need to be synchronized
with subversion branching, tagging, etc. How have other projects dealt
with this issue?