Ugh... Let's put a few facts out in the open before we start pushing to move back to the wiki.
First off, take a look at CASSANDRA-8700. There's plenty of reasoning for why the docs are now located in tree. The TL;DR is: 1. Nobody used the wiki. Like, ever. A handful of edits per year. 2. Docs in the wiki were out of sync w/ cassandra. Trying to outline the difference in implementations w/ nuanced behavior was difficult / impossible. With in-tree, you just check the docs that come w/ the version you installed. And you get them locally. Huzzah! 3. The in-tree docs are a million times better quality than the wiki *ever* was. I urge you to try giving the in-tree docs a chance. It may not be the way *you* want it but I have to point out that they're the best we've seen in Cassandra world. Making them prettier won't help anything. I do agree that the process needs to be a bit smoother for people to add stuff to the in tree side. For instance, maybe for every features that's written we start creating a corresponding JIRA for the documentation. Not every developer wants to write docs, and that's fair. The accompanying JIRA would serve as a way for 2 or more people to collaborate on the feature & the docs in tandem. It may also be beneficial to use the dev-ml to say "hey, i'm working on feature X, anyone want to help me write the docs for it? check out CASSANDRA-XYZ" Part of CASSANDRA-8700 was to shut down the wiki. I still advocate for this. At the very minimum we should make it read only with a big notice that points people to the in-tree docs. On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 8:49 AM Jeremy Hanna <jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> wrote: > The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be > attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of > individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go > with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather > than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t > know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this point, > though it would take a bit of work to convert. > > > On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more > >> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to > use > >> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998. > > > > The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit > > "old-school." > > > > I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are > > involved in other ASF projects, please chime in). > >
