I agree that wikis are great for contribution; what I meant was that they're rather poor at organising information for ease of discovery, especially by new users.
I still like the idea of some more structured docs being managed by the community though. On 1 April 2011 02:16, Eric Evans <eev...@rackspace.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 18:57 +0100, Nick Telford wrote: > > I don't think the Wiki is the right place for community maintained > > user docs; it doesn't have the necessary structure. > > The wiki is great at what wikis are great at, lowering the barrier to > contribution. There is a lot of good stuff (some of it is even > translated to other languages!); I'm guessing there would be much less > if people had to jump through more hoops. > > > Perhaps some generated docs maintained in-tree and hosted somewhere on > > cassandra.apache.org might be an idea? This would also enforce some > > order over changes made to them as changes would be controlled by > > committers and managed through JIRA. > > I had this exact idea, I even checked the CQL language documentation > into the tree as doc/cql/CQL.textile. I had expected that to either set > a precedent, or to be told to get it out of there, but neither > happened. :) > > I don't think we need to choose one or the other. If someone would > rather add documentation to the wiki, we should let them (thank them > even). People interested in something maintained with more rigor can > invite the wiki peeps to submit patches, and steal their content if they > won't! > > -- > Eric Evans > eev...@rackspace.com > >
