quetz-mod_python-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Dumpleton <grah...@dscpl.com.au>
Subject Re: The mod_python wiki has materialized!
Date Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:39:19 GMT
Doing some digging into the Confluence wiki site, it seems we may be
better off getting a wiki space created in there for mod_python which
would be specifically for developing the official documentation. This
could have restricted write access for core developers. That wiki space
can then be exported as HTML/PDF to get a snapshot for inclusion in
the release. Comments could be allowed for general Confluence users,
but not actual page edits. The comments can be left out of any export.
The comments would be as triggers for us to make amendments
to the documentation.

The MoinMoin site could be kept for general community contributions.
Ie., the FAQ, examples of handlers, links to other resources etc etc.

Graham

On 12/10/2006, at 10:29 PM, Jim Gallacher wrote:

> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>> Anyone had any thoughts on how we are going to use the wiki?
>
> Sections 4, 5 and 6 (API, Apache Configuration Directives and  
> Standard Handlers) of the current docs stay with in the source  
> distribution. Everything else would be a candidate for the wiki.  
> (We should likely decide which should go in the wiki vs the  
> modpython.org website vs the httpd.apache.org/modules/mod_python  
> website).
>
> In no particular order:
>
> News
> Roadmap
> Installation help for various OS platforms
> FAQ
> Tutorials
> Examples
> Security considerations
> Troubleshooting applications
> Mailing list information
> Developer information
> Bug reporting information
>
> Jim
>
>>  From prior comments it looks like we can't use it for the mod_python
>> documentation if we intend to then ship a snapshot of the
>> documentation with a release. I am not sure we are precluded
>> from still using it for the documentation, it just means that we  
>> could
>> not also include it in the release.
>> To my mind this is possibly okay, as once the documentation was
>> shifted to the wiki, wasn't thinking that a snapshot would be  
>> included
>> with the release anyway.
>> It is just a pity that the ASF doesn't use Confluence (the companion
>> wiki product for JIRA), as the fine grained security mechanisms in
>> that could have been used to protect the core documentation and
>> prevent modification by people who shouldn't. I know that MoinMoin
>> has fine grained access permissions as well, but from my experience
>> it is a bit harder to configure as it requires changes to a file  
>> based
>> configuration file to setup the default policy. Requiring this means
>> intervention of the ASF infrastructure people and they are possibly
>> too busy as it is. How individual page access and groups are setup
>> with MoinMoin is also a fiddly process. At lease with Confluence such
>> things are all controllable through the web interface and somewhat
>> easier to manage. That MoinMoin is fiddly to setup is possibly why
>> they recommend a separate wiki space for the protected documentation
>> as then the default policy can be just to let the selected users edit
>> the pages and one doesn't have to worry about manipulating
>> access on individual pages.
>> Graham
>> On 13/09/2006, at 9:31 AM, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 13/09/2006, at 8:45 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Woot Woot Woot! We have our wiki!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/mod_python/
>>>>>
>>>>> Now comes the hard part... what the heck are we going to do  
>>>>> with it? :)
>>>>
>>>> Ahhh, more work. :-(
>>>>
>>>> Obviously the FAQ stuff can go over there, but I would really  
>>>> like to
>>>> see the
>>>> main LaTeX documentation converted and hosted there so it can be  
>>>> updated
>>>> more easily. Might have to ask Grisha's opinion on that, he  
>>>> might want
>>>> to see
>>>> something be able to still be downloadable with the source code  
>>>> itself. In
>>>> practice though, how many actually use the LaTeX source to  
>>>> generate their
>>>> own documentation, I would guess most go to the web site anyway.  
>>>> We would
>>>> have to be careful though to make sure we annotate features to  
>>>> show over
>>>> time at which version they were introduced, since we will not  
>>>> have parallel
>>>> snapshots of documentation for each major release.
>>>
>>> Regarding hosting the official documentation within a wiki...
>>>
>>> A topic that has recently come up on infra@ is that anything that is
>>> editable by people without ASF CLAs on file is ineligible to be  
>>> shipped
>>> as part of an official Apache release.
>>>
>>> Just thought I ought to call attention to that point, if wiki- 
>>> fication
>>> of the main docs is being considered.
>>>
>>> Other projects have approached this by having two separate wikis,  
>>> the
>>> documentation one being write-access-restricted to CLA-ed people.
>>>
>>> Max.
>>>


Mime
View raw message