airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Moving stuff from CWiki to Github ?
Date Mon, 03 Aug 2020 13:40:50 GMT
I like that idea, Ry.

Regards,
Kaxil

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 2:32 PM Ry Walker <ry@rywalker.com> wrote:

> I'd say the cwiki should provide an overview of the effort, as it does now,
> and that we should keep track of the work in a Github project using github
> issues. The cwiki should link to that project board as the source of truth
> for project status. This will help the wiki page to be perceived as up to
> date as it won't need to be updated with each bit of progress.
>
> -Ry
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:29 AM Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah. After experimenting a bit with it - seems that Wiki in Github is
> > a bit "abandoned" place and omissions like lack of auto-linking issues
> > and PRs is a big bummer.
> >
> > Kamil - would you mind re-creating the issue based on the old issue? I
> > - unfortunately - added all "Apache Committers" to it so we cannot
> > re-open it.
> >
> > But I have another question here:
> >
> > 1) Should we remove
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+2.0+-+Planning
> > completely?
> > 2) More than that - should we archive and move everything else from
> > CWiki to Github Issues?
> >
> >
> > I think it will be very confusing (especially for new contributors) if
> > we keep some information in CWiki but also start using Github Issues
> > for similar purpose. So I would be for archiving all content in the
> > CWiki and moving it all to Issues.
> >
> > I took a look at the kind of documents we have in CWiki and we have a
> > LOT of information there that is outdated or could live elsewhere.
> > Here are my proposals:
> >
> > * Airflow 2.0 planing - we could completely move it to "Airflow 2.0
> > Release" issue
> > * AIPs - we could keep all the completed AIP-s there (And keep the
> > "proposed" ones for the future) but we could move all the "active"
> > AIPs to Github Issues and add all the new AIPs there.
> > * Airflow Links - we can abandon it (It's already abandoned in fact -
> > last update May 2017)
> > * Airflow Release Planning - we could review it and turn it into a
> > "meta" issue - it has a lot fo information about pre-1.10 releases
> > which we can remove (And we will have to redefine it after we agree
> > release schedule and versioning for 2.* series)
> > * Building Docs - is outdated
> > * Releasing Airflow - I think we can move it to Airflow's source code
> > in "dev" folder (like I did for the Backport Packages)
> > * Announcements -> that one we might do on "airflow.apache.org" site
> > as a Blog post ?
> > * API conventions - outdated
> > * Committers/Commiter's Guide -> we could have it in the
> > "CONTRIBUTING.rst" documentation of Airflow (some of the information
> > there is not valid anyway and CONTRIBUTING documentation is much more
> > updated)
> > * Common Pitfalls -> I think that one belongs to the documentation of
> > Airflow not to Wiki and we could select/move some still valid
> > information from there to the documentation
> > * Community Gudelines, contributor's Guide -> this all in
> CONTRIBUTING.rst
> > * First time contributor's workshop -> this can be moved to a
> > "apache.airflow.org" as a Blog Post.
> > * File lists - > those files can be all added to the airflow
> > repository in "resources" folder or smth.
> > * Meeting notes - Those could be  added to relevant issues in GitHub.
> > We could have "meta" issues for "special interest groups" and add
> > meeting notes there.
> > * Meetups -> already part of airflow.apache.org
> > * Product requirements, Roadmap Airflow 2.0 -> this all could be moved
> > to "meta" issues
> > * Roles -> should be added to CONTRIBUTING.rst
> > * Scheduler Basics - > should be part of Airflow Documentation
> >  * Season of Docs 2019 -> we can archive it.
> >
> > We could also use Github Wiki to only have "Index" of all important
> > issues that are "permanent" - Airflow 2.0 roadmap, Special interest
> > groups, AIPs,
> >
> > Let me know what you think?
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 12:31 PM Kaxil Naik <kaxilnaik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 <turbaszek@apache.org>
> > > 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 <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jarek Potiuk
> > Polidea | Principal Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 660 796 129
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message