airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Pot...@polidea.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Moving stuff from CWiki to Github ?
Date Sun, 02 Aug 2020 10:29:47 GMT
I am absolutely for limiting the places. The wiki "enablement" was merely
to see how it can work so that we can make conscious decision.

Let's see what others think :)

J.

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 12:26 PM 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 <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer

M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

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