+1 for option 1. The Github discussions look more like an overlap to the ML instead of a wiki tool like Confluence.
Best regards, Jing On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 10:08 AM Yun Tang <myas...@live.com> wrote: > For the first solution, I am concerned about whether we can view the > history of design docs, which is supported by Confluence wiki and GitHub > discussions. From my understanding, even the discussion history could let > others know the evolution of this feature and the history of a design doc > is also really important. > > Best > Yun Tang > ________________________________ > From: Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org> > Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 14:17 > To: dev@flink.apache.org <dev@flink.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Alternative way of posting FLIPs > > +1 for the first option as well > > Best, > Piotrek > > śr., 7 lut 2024 o 16:48 Matthias Pohl <matthias.p...@aiven.io.invalid> > napisał(a): > > > +1 for option 1 since it's a reasonable temporary workaround > > > > Moving to GitHub discussions would either mean moving the current FLIP > > collection or having the FLIPs in two locations. Both options do not seem > > to be optimal. Another concern I had was that GitHub Discussions wouldn't > > allow integrating diagrams that easily. But it looks like they support > > Mermaid [1] for diagrams. > > > > One flaw of the GoogleDocs approach is, though, that we have to rely on > > diagrams being provided as PNG/JPG/SVG rather than draw.io diagrams. > > draw.io > > is more tightly integrated with the Confluence wiki which allows > > editing/updating diagrams in the wiki rather than using some external > tool. > > Google Draw is also not that convenient to use in my opinion. Anyway, > > that's a minor issue, I guess. > > > > Matthias > > > > [1] > > > > > https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/working-with-advanced-formatting/creating-diagrams > > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:30 PM Lincoln Lee <lincoln.8...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Thanks Martijn moving this forward! > > > > > > +1 for the first solution, because as of now it looks like this is a > > > temporary solution and we're still looking forward to the improvement > by > > > ASF Infra, when the access is ok for contributors, we can back to the > > > current workflow. > > > > > > For solution 2, one visible downside is that it becomes inconvenient to > > > look for flips (unless we permanently switch to github discussion). > > > > > > Looking forward to hearing more thoughts. > > > > > > Best, > > > Lincoln Lee > > > > > > > > > Martijn Visser <martijnvis...@apache.org> 于2024年2月7日周三 21:51写道： > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > ASF Infra has confirmed to me that only ASF committers can access the > > > > ASF Confluence site since a recent change. One of the results of this > > > > decision is that users can't signup and access Confluence, so only > > > > committers+ can create FLIPs. > > > > > > > > ASF Infra hopes to improve this situation when they move to the Cloud > > > > shortly (as in: some months), but they haven't committed on an actual > > > > date. The idea would be that we find a temporary solution until > anyone > > > > can request access to Confluence. > > > > > > > > There are a couple of ways we could resolve this situation: > > > > 1. Contributors create a Google Doc and make that view-only, and post > > > > that Google Doc to the mailing list for a discussion thread. When the > > > > discussions have been resolved, the contributor ask on the Dev > mailing > > > > list to a committer/PMC to copy the contents from the Google Doc, and > > > > create a FLIP number for them. The contributor can then use that FLIP > > > > to actually have a VOTE thread. > > > > 2. We could consider moving FLIPs to "Discussions" on Github, like > > > > Airflow does at https://github.com/apache/airflow/discussions > > > > 3. Perhaps someone else has another good idea. > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your thoughts. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > > >
