karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>
Subject Re: Karaf first birthday concall minute notes
Date Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:39:48 GMT
Yes I would also like to have a nightly build of the documentation from 
Additionally we should have a nightly build of the current production 
branch (2.x in our case).

A build of the docs on release is also good but I think more important 
is the branch as this allows us to fix problems in the documentation 
after a release.


Am 17.06.2011 13:23, schrieb Achim Nierbeck:
> Hey,
> I like that idea of a nightly build on documentation :-)
> If we get this easily integrated on our karaf.apache.org
> with the right hint that it's the last documentation from trunk.
> Voila done :-)
> regards, Achim
> 2011/6/17 Guillaume Nodet<gnodet@gmail.com>:
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:28, James Strachan<james@fusesource.com>  wrote:
>>> On 17 June 2011 11:16, Christian Schneider<chris@die-schneider.net>  wrote:
>>>> Hi James,
>>>> first thanks for your explanations.
>>>> Am 17.06.2011 11:14, schrieb James Strachan:
>>>>> On 17 June 2011 09:19, Christian Schneider<chris@die-schneider.net>
>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>> I know that I have proposed this before and then got the answer that
>>>>>> was discussed already. Still I have the feeling that everybody dislikes
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> current way we build our website.... so again a try :-)...
>>>>> I'm not sure you realise how much dislike there is for wikis?
>>>> I did not realize but I am starting to see :-) I only saw the
>>>>> Wikis don't help committers and don't help users (as you end up with
>>>>> crap everywhere from different versions - or worse documentation for
>>>>> stuff thats not even released yet); all just in case we hope one day
>>>>> someone will turn up and dump a load of useful stuff in the wiki (that
>>>>> never really happens).
>>>> That is true help from people outside the project is rare.
>>>>> Incidentally I'm even finding the argument that a wiki is the easiest
>>>>> way to get contributions to have less and less value these days since
>>>>> github. Its actually easier for a total newbie to come along, fork an
>>>>> apache project's git repo on github.com, edit some text files&  
 do a
>>>>> pull request than it is to pester folks for write access to the wiki
>>>>> first before they can even begin to contribute anything. The wiki has
>>>>> a much larger barrier to entry than github.
>>>> Github would be a great way to improve the documentation workflow for karaf.
>>>> You would not
>>>> need to open a jira issue to make a change and apply patch. Sadly we are
>>>> stuck with subversion.
>>> Sure - the sooner we can ditch subversion at Apache the better.
>>> However still the easiest way to get new documentation contributions
>>> today at Apache is to get folks to fork the apache repos at github.
>>> Then asynchronously do the ICLA stuff; not block on the ICLA first.
>>>>> Imagine for a second, you are a newbie - you've seen some issue or
>>>>> have an idea for a little page; with github 2 clicks, 20 seconds later
>>>>> you're editing the file in question or writing the new file then
>>>>> firing off the pull request and getting on with your life doing
>>>>> something else. With a wiki you try editing; doesn't work, so you
>>>>> shoot off an email for access then wait. Then after a random time
>>>>> period of hours to days you get more mails then at some point later,
>>>>> you get the ability to login again to the wiki and hopefully you can
>>>>> now edit the page. By the time you get access you've probably
>>>>> forgotten what you were gonna do in the first place :)
>>>> The process of getting rights for the wiki is a problem of course. But it
>>>> necesary as we need the icla to accept contributions.
>>>> That may also be a big problem with github. You send a pull request but that
>>>> opens a big problem with IP issues. I think a pull request
>>>> does not include that the user declares that he has the rights on the code
>>>> he submits and may donate them to apache. In fact it does not even say he
>>>> donates the code at all.
>>>> So for example offering dual licenses later is a problem. I think this is
>>>> big issue with github. I am not sure how important this is for documentation
>>>> though.
>>> We need the ICLA before we can merge into our repo. However thats a
>>> completely separate issue to the potential new contributor being able
>>> to actually create their contribution in the first place. The ICLA
>>> stuff can be done in parallel after their initial contribution and it
>>> really doesn't matter if it takes weeks to do (which it usually does
>>> anyway). Apache committers are the only ones who merge the github
>>> changes to the Apache repos - so there is zero issue of IP here.
>>> Whats important is folks can contribute quickly and easily with
>>> minimum delay or red tape. We're all busy; if you have to wait 2-3
>>> weeks before you can add a line of text to a document; you're gonna
>>> find something else to do quite frankly. Waiting weeks for an ICLA
>>> does not make it easy for newbies to contribute. With github they can
>>> make their contributions immediately; folks can immediately see it and
>>> comment on it. Then in parallel work can commence on getting the ICLA
>>> in place so the changes can be merged to Apache. Indeed while the ICLA
>>> is being processed the user can make more contributions. When the ICLA
>>> is done then a committer can merge in whatever documentation changes
>>> they've made.
>> Over the last 5 years, I've rarely seen people contributing a lot to
>> the doc without being or becoming committers.
>> I don't want to change a technical decision based on the fact that
>> people *might* need something, but rather what people actually need.
>> You are a committer, so you can access / modify the documentation
>> without any problems.  So what are your real problems with the current
>> solution ?  We can easily set up nightly uploads or even an hourly
>> cron job (though given the change rate, i think a nightly one should
>> be sufficient).   If you need an editor, you always find some software
>> I think such as
>> http://www.labnol.org/software/wysiwyg-wiki-editor/18062/ though I
>> tend to use the "mvn jetty:run" which works quite well as you can see
>> your changes immediately.
>> The main problem is that we've been asked by infra to get rid of
>> confluence, so I certainly don't want to think about getting back to
>> confluence unless infra retracts.
>>> --
>>> James
>>> -------
>>> FuseSource
>>> Email: james@fusesource.com
>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
>>> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>> Open Source Integration and Messaging
>> --
>> ------------------------
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> ------------------------
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://fusesource.com

Christian Schneider

Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com

View raw message