I just tried (Wed, 3/15) and still received the same error. I asked on the infra slack channel and they replied that they are still working to determine what the issue is - signs are pointing to something inside of confluence, but no progress.
At this point, I think we should move forward with a GH wiki and then we can re-evaluate things once the Apache confluence issue is sorted out. Ed Coleman -----Original Message----- From: Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 11:09 AM To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Enable Github wiki in asf.yaml? Looking at the Infra slack channel response, one of the responses in the channel said that "it's some sort of db corruption according to Atlassian". Doesn't sound good.... On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 10:55 AM Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com> wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24291 is still unresolved > and the only comment on the ticket is one that Ed added two days ago > requesting an ACCUMULO wiki space. > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 12:26 PM dev1 <d...@etcoleman.com> wrote: > >> I do not see any comments in the infa slack channel - so no updates >> for now. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com> >> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 12:06 PM >> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Enable Github wiki in asf.yaml? >> >> Right, I was just curious if there was any follow-up as I think Ed >> said that it was going to be discussed by the INFRA team yesterday. >> There is at least one other recent ticket ( >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24216) where selfserve >> had an issue and the INFRA team created the space manually. >> >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 11:57 AM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > You can track that issue at >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24291 >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 10:31 AM Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > Ed, >> > > >> > > Any update from INFRA on being able to create confluence pages? >> > > >> > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 4:07 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > We've definitely used the website for more than that. We use it >> > > > to document things for users, help developers know how to >> > > > contribute, store drafts of designs, share user stories via >> > > > blogs, do release announcements, and more. There's definitely >> > > > space on the website to do this kind of thing, if we want to. >> > > > We've used it that way before. If you only see it as a place >> > > > "for user consumption after everything has been finalized", >> > > > then you're missing out on the other ways we currently use the >> > > > site, and the ways we've used it in >> the past. >> > > > >> > > > With the website, most of the collaboration would happen in the >> > > > GH issues about proposed designs or changes to designs, just >> > > > like we do today with code or other documentation, which >> > > > everybody is used to. I agree it's not as good as Google Docs >> > > > for on-the-fly comments/annotations, but I don't think >> > > > Confluence or Wiki are as good as that either, and Google Docs isn't >> > > > really an option... >> > > > unless you just want to link to it in the mailing list and >> > > > stick to Google Docs from your personal Google account, until >> > > > it's ready for publication, which would also be fine (any >> > > > interested persons can simply request write access by replying >> > > > to the message where >> you shared the link).. >> > > > >> > > > We are a much smaller project than many others, and we have >> > > > previously suffered from having stuff too spread out. Even if >> > > > other projects find a separate space valuable for them, I'm not >> > > > sure it's best for the Accumulo project. While I think it's >> > > > useful to examine what other projects do, I do think we should >> > > > be careful to adopt anything just because others find it convenient >> > > > for them. >> > > > >> > > > Confluence is my second choice, but with a big gap between it >> > > > and my first choice. >> > > > >> > > > On a personal note: I hate using Confluence, because I think >> > > > the navigation is highly unintuitive, as is the permissions >> > > > model, and I don't like the idea of learning yet another >> > > > wiki-syntax (though I've read Confluence supports some limited >> > > > Markdown, but probably not the same as GitHub/Jekyll). I also >> > > > do not want to set up custom notifications for watching yet >> > > > another space. If we use Confluence, I will probably contribute >> > > > very infrequently there because of my frustrations with having >> > > > used it before. However, that would be my choice, and should >> > > > not be a reason the project chooses one over another. I'm >> > > > sharing my personal opinion only because it is influencing my >> > > > opinion about the website being more accessible, via our >> > > > current GitHub PR/issue/Markdown workflows, and I wonder how >> > > > many other potential contributors would feel similarly. It's >> > > > hard to know, since it seems like a lot of this is subjective, >> > > > and is going to come down to a consensus of personal >> preferences. >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 3:46 PM Dave Marion >> > > > <dmario...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > I don't see the website as an area where we would have >> > > > > collaborative discussions about an idea. For example, making >> > > > > comments and >> > suggestions >> > > > on >> > > > > a document like you can do in Google Docs. I see the website >> > > > > as a >> > place >> > > > > where items are documented for user consumption after >> > > > > everything has >> > been >> > > > > finalized. I'm not trying to create a private discussion >> > > > > area, I >> > think >> > > > > anyone can see the wiki (but I think anonymous comments are >> > > > > disabled >> > due >> > > > to >> > > > > spam issues). I see no issue with putting work-in-progress >> > > > > documents >> > on a >> > > > > wiki and referencing them via emails to the dev list. I think >> > > > > this is >> > > > done >> > > > > in a lot of other projects. Non-committers that don't have >> > > > > access to >> > the >> > > > > wiki and want to make comments, suggestions, and ask >> > > > > questions can >> > do so >> > > > > via the mailing list. I think it's also possible that people >> > > > > can get confluence accounts (see >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7058), >> > > > > so if a non-committer wanted to participate they could. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 2:53 PM Christopher >> > > > > <ctubb...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:34 PM Dave Marion >> > > > > > <dmario...@gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I'm opposed to using the website for the reasons I >> > > > > > > specified >> > > > earlier, so >> > > > > > it >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Your reasons that I saw were: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > 1. I don't think internal design discussions should go on >> > > > > > > the >> > project >> > > > > > website. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > That doesn't look to me like a reason. That appears to just >> > > > > > be >> > stating >> > > > > > the conclusion. Did I miss your reason here? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2. Changes to the design documents could not be seen by >> > > > > > > others >> > right >> > > > > > away (IIRC changes to the website are built and available >> > > > > > at https://accumulo.staged.apache.org/, but human >> > > > > > intervention is >> > > > required >> > > > > > to publish it at https://accumulo.apache.org/). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > What do you mean by "others" here? Do you mean "users", as >> > > > > > opposed >> > to >> > > > > > "developers/contributors"? The ASF draws a distinction >> > > > > > between "developers/contributors" and "users" as it >> > > > > > pertains to official releases. Releases are intended to be >> > > > > > consumed by users, and pre-release stuff is intended to be >> > > > > > collaborative, open to all potential >> > > > > > developers/contributors. Very very rarely are things >> > > > > > reserved exclusively for committers. We don't even have a >> > > > > > private committers space (the private mailing list is >> > > > > > PMC-private, not committer-private). Having a distinction >> > > > > > between users and >> > developers >> > > > > > doesn't mean we can't publish things on the website... it >> > > > > > just >> > means >> > > > > > that we should be careful about how we do it, which is the >> > > > > > same >> > care >> > > > > > we should take regardless of where we put it. Specifically, >> > > > > > the >> > care >> > > > > > we need to take is to avoid marketing pre-release content >> > > > > > to >> users. >> > > > > > One way we can exercise this care for content on our >> > > > > > website is >> > that >> > > > > > we can avoid sharing these unpolished designs by simply not >> > > > > > linking them on the site, or by placing them in an area >> > > > > > that is clearly >> > marked >> > > > > > as intended for devs. But, we have no similar distinction >> > > > > > between committers and non-committer devs for which we >> > > > > > should avoid sharing pre-release content under development. >> > > > > > In fact, it is the >> > opposite... >> > > > > > we should be developing openly so as to allow room for >> > non-committers >> > > > > > to become committers through participation in development >> > activities. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > As for the staging/publication of the website, that's just >> > > > > > a >> > mechanic >> > > > > > for verifying the website isn't broken before we serve it. >> > > > > > It's >> > not a >> > > > > > mechanism for keeping things internal vs. shared and >> > > > > > doesn't have anything to do with the separation between >> > > > > > devs and users. We >> > already >> > > > > > publish Draft contents to the website, as well as >> > developer-specific >> > > > > > documentation not intended for users. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We've even specifically published work-in-progress design >> > > > > > documents there, of the same type that seems to be the >> > > > > > basis of this conversation ( >> https://accumulo.apache.org/design/system-snapshot). >> > I >> > > > > > would strongly prefer us to continue to do it this way, >> > > > > > rather than create a new space, and have these kinds of >> > > > > > things scattered in multiple places. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > If, on the other hand, you intend to say that these should >> > > > > > be >> > private >> > > > > > because they aren't ready for other potential contributors, >> > > > > > then I would argue that we're an openly developed project... >> > > > > > if something isn't ready to be shared with other potential >> > > > > > contributors / developers, such that you want to keep it >> > > > > > internal to existing committers, then it's not ready to be >> > > > > > contributed to the project at all... because we don't >> > > > > > restrict collaboration to only existing committers. That >> > > > > > would prevent others from participating and >> > earning >> > > > > > the merit to become committers, and that's not something we >> > > > > > should >> > be >> > > > > > doing. Anything that is okay to share with existing >> > > > > > committers >> > should >> > > > > > be okay to share to other potential contributors who want >> > > > > > to participate, and should be done in a space that allows >> > > > > > them to do that. The website is a perfect space for that, >> > > > > > and has everything >> > we >> > > > > > need. I'm actually not sure about Confluence... I suspect >> > > > > > non-committers wouldn't be able to participate there >> > > > > > because they probably can't get accounts for it. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > looks like we need to >> > > > > > > wait for INFRA to fix Confluence. I'd be curious how much >> > > > > > > we >> > need to >> > > > use >> > > > > > > the mailing list during >> > > > > > > the design phase. We can announce meeting dates/times on >> > > > > > > the >> > mailing >> > > > list >> > > > > > > and post links to >> > > > > > > meeting notes in Confluence. Ultimately, decisions made >> > > > > > > by the >> > people >> > > > > > that >> > > > > > > want to be involved >> > > > > > > will turn into pull requests against the codebase which >> > comitters can >> > > > > > weigh >> > > > > > > in on. When you say, >> > > > > > > "... but decisions about those would still need to be >> > > > > > > done on the >> > > > mailing >> > > > > > > list." Are you saying that we need to discuss every >> > > > > > > single design decision on the mailing >> > list? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Yes and no. I am saying that decisions need to happen on >> > > > > > the >> > mailing >> > > > > > list, but I agree with you that this can be satisfied >> > > > > > through pull requests. I just wanted to emphasize that >> > > > > > regardless of where we do that pre-decision collaboration, >> > > > > > that collaboration should not be misconstrued as a decision >> > > > > > to >> accept those ideas into the project. >> > The >> > > > > > decision occurs during the PR or other activity that >> > > > > > interfaces >> > with >> > > > > > the mailing list, subsequent to the collaboration in the >> > design/idea >> > > > > > phase. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > As for the pre-decision collaboration space we're >> > > > > > discussing, I >> > just >> > > > > > want to be careful that we're not creating such a space in >> > > > > > an exclusionary way that allows only existing committers to >> > participate, >> > > > > > that excludes other potential contributors. This is still >> > > > > > an openly-developed project, and we should collaborate in a >> > > > > > space >> > that is >> > > > > > not exclusive to existing committers, but open to >> > > > > > non-committer contributors and potential contributors as well. >> > > > > > So, while we may >> > want >> > > > > > to keep a line separating dev activity from user >> > > > > > consumption (an important separation that relates to >> > > > > > official ASF releases), we >> > should >> > > > > > not be drawing a line between committer-devs as "internal" >> > > > > > and contributor-devs as "external". The website, with its >> > > > > > own issue tracker, the ability to render markdown, do >> > > > > > reviews, and collaboratively edit, seems like the ideal >> > > > > > place to me. We've used >> > it >> > > > > > before for the same purpose, and I think we should continue >> > > > > > to do >> > so. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 12:56 PM Christopher >> > > > > > > <ctubb...@apache.org >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > So, I agree a space would be helpful. Although it's old >> > > > > > > > school >> > and >> > > > > > > > inconvenient, the mailing list is the canonical place >> > > > > > > > for >> > > > discussion. >> > > > > > > > We currently use GitHub issues a lot, but that's copied >> > > > > > > > to a >> > > > mailing >> > > > > > > > list (as is our old JIRA space), so if people want to >> > participate >> > > > > > > > without a GitHub account, they can still do that. There >> > > > > > > > are >> > certain >> > > > > > > > options that are perhaps less convenient, such as just >> > > > > > > > using >> > the >> > > > > > > > mailing list and our dev SVN space, but still more >> > > > > > > > appropriate >> > than >> > > > > > > > options that would be less ubiquitous for potential >> > participants. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I think the ASF Confluence is probably fine, for >> > > > > > > > storing, >> > editing, >> > > > and >> > > > > > > > collaborating on shared documents, but decisions about >> > > > > > > > those >> > would >> > > > > > > > still need to be done on the mailing list. If I >> > > > > > > > remember >> > > > correctly, we >> > > > > > > > used to have a Wiki space, prior to it being >> > > > > > > > transferred to Confluence, but it was poorly >> > > > > > > > maintained, so we abandoned it in >> > > > favor >> > > > > > > > of using the website for docs. I could be >> > > > > > > > mis-remembering, but >> > I >> > > > think >> > > > > > > > this is the case. It might explain why you can't create >> > > > > > > > a >> > > > Confluence >> > > > > > > > space. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > My preference would be to just use the website. I think >> > > > > > > > it's >> > fine >> > > > to >> > > > > > > > have a dev / design area of the website, and we can >> > > > > > > > discuss on >> > > > GitHub >> > > > > > > > issues for the accumulo-website repo. That is a bit >> > > > > > > > less >> > convenient >> > > > > > > > than Confluence if it's used heavily, but it's more >> > > > > > > > convenient >> > in >> > > > the >> > > > > > > > sense that it's more accessible and fits more in line >> > > > > > > > with our >> > > > current >> > > > > > > > mode of operation. Plus, when a document is final, it's >> > > > > > > > easy to >> > > > link >> > > > > > > > to from our documentation, without making users jump to >> > > > > > > > another service to view docs. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I would be opposed to using GitHub wiki or a new git repo. >> > > > > > > > We >> > have >> > > > > > > > enough repos. Although it seems like they are free, >> > > > > > > > there is >> > still >> > > > a >> > > > > > > > lot of boilerplate work to maintain them, from managing >> > > > > > > > .github/workflows, .github/CONTRIBUTING.md, etc., to >> > .asf.yaml, to >> > > > > > > > README, to keeping copyright dates updated in the >> > > > > > > > NOTICE file, >> > and >> > > > > > > > more. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In summary, my preference: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 1. Keep a space in accumulo-website, discuss on GH >> > > > > > > > issues and >> > > > mailing >> > > > > > > > list (strongly preferred) 2. Confluence, discuss on >> > > > > > > > mailing list (prefer over other >> > options, >> > > > but >> > > > > > > > not a fan) >> > > > > > > > 3. GitHub wiki, discuss on mailing list (strongly >> > > > > > > > prefer not >> > to use >> > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > option) >> > > > > > > > 4. New GitHub repo, discuss on GH issues and mailing >> > > > > > > > list >> > (strongly >> > > > > > > > prefer not to use this option) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 12:30 PM Ed Coleman < >> > edcole...@apache.org> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Currently, asf cannot create new wiki's because of a >> > Confluence >> > > > > > issue ( >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24291) I >> > > > > > > > chatted >> > with >> > > > > > infra >> > > > > > > > and in response they created that issue. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > To expand on this discussion, I would like to toss >> > > > > > > > > out >> > another >> > > > > > > > alternative to discuss / explore. What if we used a >> > > > > > > > separate >> > > > GitHub >> > > > > > > > project, something like Accumulo-Design, just like >> > accumulo-proxy >> > > > and >> > > > > > > > accumulo-examples. As a separate project, it would be >> > available >> > > > for >> > > > > > > > collaboration for the community, but remain separate >> > > > > > > > from main >> > > > project >> > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > the website to keep current code / documentation / >> > > > > > > > design >> > clearly >> > > > > > separate >> > > > > > > > from speculative design discussions. As a project: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > - document history would be preserved with git commit >> > history. >> > > > > > > > > - document collaboration could be done with normal PR >> > > > submissions / >> > > > > > > > reviews. >> > > > > > > > > - issues could be used to discuss design aspects, >> > > > > > > > > capturing >> > the >> > > > > > comment >> > > > > > > > history. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The biggest downside is that it would be yet another >> > > > > > > > > project >> > to >> > > > > > follow / >> > > > > > > > track. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > For me, I think the issue is that we need a public, >> > collaborative >> > > > > > space >> > > > > > > > to hold design discussions. Neither the main project or >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > web-site >> > > > > > seem >> > > > > > > > quite appropriate and Confluence seems to lack the >> > collaboration >> > > > that >> > > > > > can >> > > > > > > > be achieved with github. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > We need a space to capture the redesign and whatever >> > > > > > > > > we >> > select >> > > > can be >> > > > > > > > made to work - I'm just wondering what provides the >> > > > > > > > easiest >> > forum >> > > > to >> > > > > > build >> > > > > > > > a collaborative space for the Accumulo community. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ed Coleman >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On 2023/02/28 16:35:31 dlmar...@comcast.net wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > Circling back on this issue - I agree that comments >> > > > > > > > > > and >> > such >> > > > make >> > > > > > > > sense for internal design documents. I'm going to >> > > > > > > > create an >> > INFRA >> > > > > > ticket >> > > > > > > > for a cwiki space for Accumulo unless there are any >> objections. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > > > > > > From: Drew Farris <d...@ill.org> >> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2023 5:16 PM >> > > > > > > > > > To: dev@accumulo.apache.org >> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Enable Github wiki in asf.yaml? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As mentioned, wikis can provide a streamlined >> > > > > > > > > > collaborative >> > > > editing >> > > > > > > > workflow that's less labor intensive than updating a >> website. >> > They >> > > > can >> > > > > > > > promote collaboration by providing specific tooling to >> > > > > > > > support >> > > > > > comments, >> > > > > > > > revisions and iteration. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > In terms of preservation, GH wikis act just like >> > > > > > > > > > any other >> > Git >> > > > > > > > repository, with a remote at (for example) g...@github.com: >> > > > > > > > apache/accumulo.wiki.git >> > > > > > > > > > IIRC the pages are just GH flavored markdown. There >> > > > > > > > > > are at >> > > > least a >> > > > > > few >> > > > > > > > Apache projects using them. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > However, GH wikis lack some features that I feel >> > > > > > > > > > are >> > important >> > > > to >> > > > > > > > support collaborative authoring. For example, the >> > > > > > > > ability to >> > > > comment >> > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > discuss specific passages in a document is a feature >> > > > > > > > that's >> > > > present in >> > > > > > > > Cwiki, but not in GH wikis. I've come appreciate this >> > > > > > > > this in >> > my >> > > > google >> > > > > > > > docs and office workflows, so expect that it would be >> > > > > > > > useful >> > for >> > > > > > Accumulo >> > > > > > > > design discussions too. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 2:54 PM Keith Turner < >> > > > ktur...@apache.org> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I would like to try a wiki for design documents, >> > > > > > > > > > > I think >> > it >> > > > > > would be >> > > > > > > > > > > less cumbersome than the website and we can >> > > > > > > > > > > always link >> > from >> > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > website and issues to the wiki. I think its ok >> > > > > > > > > > > to give >> > it a >> > > > try >> > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > > > > abandon it in the future, if abandoned would just >> > > > > > > > > > > need to >> > > > > > properly >> > > > > > > > > > > communicate that. The content should be archived >> > > > > > > > > > > in >> > Apache >> > > > > > > > > > > infrastructure, so if GH wiki does not do that >> > > > > > > > > > > then we >> > should >> > > > > > not use >> > > > > > > > > > > it. If GH wiki is not an option then could try cwiki. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 7:55 AM >> > > > > > > > > > > <dlmar...@comcast.net> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I reverted the change. I didn't think it would >> > > > > > > > > > > > be a big >> > > > deal, >> > > > > > but >> > > > > > > > if >> > > > > > > > > > > > it >> > > > > > > > > > > requires discussion, then let's discuss it. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm looking for a place to host information >> > > > > > > > > > > > related to >> > > > internal >> > > > > > > > > > > > design >> > > > > > > > > > > discussions. I envision these to be living >> > > > > > > > > > > documents that >> > > > will be >> > > > > > > > > > > updated over time as the design/implementation >> > progresses and >> > > > > > that >> > > > > > > > > > > other committers will be able to comment on and >> > > > > > > > > > > edit. I >> > don't >> > > > > > feel >> > > > > > > > > > > that the website is the correct place for this >> because: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I don't think internal design discussions >> > > > > > > > > > > > should >> > go >> > > > on the >> > > > > > > > > > > > project >> > > > > > > > > > > website. >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Changes to the design documents could not >> > > > > > > > > > > > be seen >> > by >> > > > > > others >> > > > > > > > > > > > right >> > > > > > > > > > > away (IIRC changes to the website are built and >> > available at >> > > > > > > > > > > https://accumulo.staged.apache.org/, but human >> > intervention >> > > > is >> > > > > > > > > > > required to publish it at >> https://accumulo.apache.org/). >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I looked in the INFRA issues and other projects >> > > > > > > > > > > > are >> > using >> > > > the >> > > > > > GH >> > > > > > > > > > > > Wiki >> > > > > > > > > > > feature and I saw no mention of backing it up or >> > > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > requirement >> > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > do >> > > > > > > > > > > so (maybe they rely on GitHub backing it up?). It >> > > > > > > > > > > does >> > appear >> > > > > > that we >> > > > > > > > > > > would need an INFRA ticket so that they can >> > > > > > > > > > > modify the >> > GitHub >> > > > > > project >> > > > > > > > > > > settings to lock the GitHub wiki down so that >> > > > > > > > > > > only >> > > > committers can >> > > > > > > > > > > modify it. If GitHub Wiki is not acceptable, then >> > > > > > > > > > > I think >> > > > Apache >> > > > > > > > > > > Confluence ( >> > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org) might be an acceptable >> > > > alternative. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2023 4:41 AM >> > > > > > > > > > > > To: accumulo-dev <dev@accumulo.apache.org> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: comm...@accumulo.apache.org >> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [accumulo] branch main updated: >> > > > > > > > > > > > Enable >> > Github >> > > > > > wiki in >> > > > > > > > > > > asf.yaml >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't recall a discussion about this change, >> > > > > > > > > > > > but I >> > think >> > > > it >> > > > > > goes >> > > > > > > > > > > against previous efforts to make the website the >> > > > > > > > > > > one >> > > > canonical >> > > > > > > > > > > location for our documentation. I don't even >> > > > > > > > > > > think infra >> > is >> > > > > > backing >> > > > > > > > up >> > > > > > > > > > > wiki repos, so there wouldn't even be a record of >> > > > > > > > > > > the >> > wiki >> > > > > > contents >> > > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > > ASF spaces (vs. the main repo, which is backed up >> > > > > > > > > > > to >> > GitBox >> > > > and >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > issue tracker, which CCs the notifications list). >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > In short, I think this should be reverted and >> > > > > > > > > > > > we >> > should not >> > > > > > use the >> > > > > > > > > > > GitHub wiki. If we need to store documents in a >> > > > > > > > > > > version >> > > > > > controlled >> > > > > > > > > > > way, we can store them on the website, or in our >> > project's >> > > > SVN >> > > > > > dev >> > > > > > > > > > > space. The wiki is just another place people >> > > > > > > > > > > would have >> > to >> > > > > > follow if >> > > > > > > > > > > they want to participate, and I don't think that >> > > > > > > > > > > serves >> > us. >> > > > > > > > Therefore, >> > > > > > > > > > > I think we shouldn't use it. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 15:59 >> > > > > > > > > > > > <dlmar...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an automated email from the ASF >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dual-hosted >> > git >> > > > > > > > repository. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dlmarion pushed a commit to branch main in >> > > > > > > > > > > > > repository >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/accumulo. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > git >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > The following commit(s) were added to >> > refs/heads/main by >> > > > this >> > > > > > > > push: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > new ae8a817e7b Enable Github wiki in >> > > > > > > > > > > > > asf.yaml >> > > > > > ae8a817e7b is >> > > > > > > > > > > > > described below >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > commit >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ae8a817e7b2af8c64096ed1a4274eaef44c0e677 >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Author: Dave Marion <dlmar...@apache.org> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > AuthorDate: Fri Feb 24 15:59:10 2023 -0500 >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Enable Github wiki in asf.yaml >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- >> > > > > > > > > > > > > .asf.yaml | 2 +- >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 >> > > > > > > > > > > > > deletion(-) >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/.asf.yaml b/.asf.yaml index >> > > > > > bc2c943e82..08aa357082 >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 100644 >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/.asf.yaml >> > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/.asf.yaml >> > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ github: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > - big-data >> > > > > > > > > > > > > - hacktoberfest >> > > > > > > > > > > > > features: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > - wiki: false >> > > > > > > > > > > > > + wiki: true >> > > > > > > > > > > > > issues: true >> > > > > > > > > > > > > projects: true >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > >> >
