airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ry Walker ...@rywalker.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Moving stuff from CWiki to Github ?
Date Mon, 03 Aug 2020 13:32:34 GMT
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 LOT of information there that is outdated or could live elsewhere.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 * Building Docs - is outdated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