+1 Moving doc to git would be good, moreover if we update and improve it a litlle bit along the migration process (at least the organization).
2015-04-28 16:40 GMT+02:00 Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk>: > Yuri, > > I think the main reason to move is to make it easier for people to > make changes, over the existing confluence system. So I would have > though that improving the documentation is something people would be > more likely to do afterwards. > > I agree that opening some tickets where the documentation could be > improved does help highlight the problem, but it doesn't make it any > easier for people to fix. > > Ali > > P.s. Do you want me to do anything for RC9, or are you happy to submit > one? Are you waiting on me for anything still? > > On 28 April 2015 at 15:36, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe it would be better to move in small steps. Like to go over current > > documentation and open tickets with requests for improvements wherever > > something is missing or not clear. > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > > > >> Well, doesn't look like anybody else has much opinion. > >> > >> Shall I just raise a ticket for a new repo for this? > >> > >> It probably makes sense to put the whole website under it, rather than > >> using the combination of Apache CMS website + Confluence that we do > >> currently. We could just use Jekyll for both website and docs? > >> > >> Ali > >> > >> > >> On 25 April 2015 at 02:52, Evan Hughes <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > indeed and yea without a doubt > >> > > >> > On 25 April 2015 at 09:59, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Evan, > >> >> > >> >> +1 > >> >> > >> >> After giving this some more thought post the Hangout, I do think that > >> >> moving the docs to Git provides us with a measurable improvement over > >> >> the current situation - particularly with the ability to keep docs > >> >> synced with the releases via branches, and the reduced barrier to > >> >> entry for changing them. > >> >> > >> >> Would you be interested in leading the migration effort? > >> >> > >> >> Ali > >> >> > >> >> On 24 April 2015 at 05:59, Evan Hughes <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > woops, my bad > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > This is a proposal for the storage of documentation to be moved to > a > >> git > >> >> > repository instead of on confluence and leave confluence as a place > >> for > >> >> > other technical documents used by developers. > >> >> > > >> >> > *Confluence:* > >> >> > *The issues:* > >> >> > - contributors must ask for permission from the mailing > list > >> to > >> >> be > >> >> > given the privilege settings to edit/create pages > >> >> > - Simple revision history is kept but is more difficult to > >> easy > >> >> > transition documentation between wave release versions, more of a > >> running > >> >> > active document > >> >> > *The good:* > >> >> > * - *easily able to export to pdf and web formats > >> >> > - has an easy online rich editor > >> >> > > >> >> > *Git (markdown):* > >> >> > * The issues:* > >> >> > * - *setup as a new repository? a folder in current > repository? > >> >> > apache will need to be involved if a new repository is to be setup > >> >> > - exporting the markdown files into a meaningful > >> representation > >> >> > (web, pdf), many build systems exist but custom system can also be > >> >> written > >> >> > by our committers > >> >> > * The good:* > >> >> > * - *less of a roadblock, allows users to contribute more, > also > >> >> > allows new committers a trial at how to add commits using the > apache > >> >> > procedures > >> >> > - Highly customisable > >> >> > - Revision history and versions easily achieved for example > >> with > >> >> > branches (master, 0.4.x, 0.5.x, ....) > >> >> > > >> >> > *TL;DR* > >> >> > > >> >> > Confluence is a rich wiki but can limit the availability for > >> committers > >> >> to > >> >> > publish updates (need to ask permission, which isn't that hard) and > >> is a > >> >> > good place to store technical information for the project. > >> >> > A markdown written file structured documentation implementation is > >> more > >> >> > accessible to developers, follows a more natural flow and can be > >> highly > >> >> > customised and has great revision structure. > >> >> > > >> >> > *Relevant Jira Issues:* > >> >> > * - none* > >> >> > > >> >> > *Please express your opinions below and if enough feedback is > present > >> a > >> >> > vote from the mailing list should be called after the discussion. * > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On 24 April 2015 at 14:28, Evan Hughes <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> This is a proposal for .... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> TL;DR > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
