Hi. I also believe that wiki are not so good for a community managed wiki even thought it is used as "de facto" tool for opensource projects doc.
I suggest that we use drupal's book module, it is really full featured and easy to use. I would be happy to do some wireframing and set-up a demo if neccessary. Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 1 avr. 2011 à 01:27, Nick Telford <nick.telf...@gmail.com> a écrit : > 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 >> >>
