On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> I'd again ask why we are keeping 2 wiki reports - one disadvantage this >>>>> has is that folks looking for history of report changes on the Incubator >>>>> report wiki will get only a single change rather than the true revision >>>>> history of the report. >>>> >>>> Are you asking because you didn't see my earlier response (below), or >>>> because you don't agree? ;-) (mainly it's so that we can have a >>>> scratch pad during the three months leading up to a report, I find >>>> people tend to forget and having this available early is helpful). >>> >>> Heh, probably a little bit of both (sorry missed your reply, or forgot >>> about it :-) ). As for the not agreeing, I guess I am +1 to having a >>> scratch pad, but wondering why the Incubator wiki doesn't work out to be >>> that scratch pad since folks may want to look up the history of the changes >>> for the MRUnit report at some point and will have to go to 2 wikis to find >>> that under the current model. >>> >> >> From what I can/could see the incubator wiki is only for capturing the >> most recent report, not upcoming. (at least no one else is using it in >> this way) > > Yeah that's actually what I'm proposing. What I'm saying is this. Suppose we > have a June 2011 board report due: > > 1. You create the June 2011 board report on Confluence, rather than the > Incubator wiki > 2. Eric updates the Confluence board report version > 3. Chris updates the Confluence board report version > 4. Patrick updates one last time, then copies over to the Incubator wiki > board report area > 5. Joe blow comes 2 months later, and wants to see the revisions of the > MRUnit board report from June 2011 > a. Joe blow scratches his head when there is only 1 revision in the > Incubator wiki > b. Joe blow realizes that there is another wiki he has to search (by > finding this conversation in the mailing archives on Google :-) ). > > That was the use case I was talking about. >
I totally get this, but I don't see that the incubator is supporting the model you are suggesting, that's all I'm saying. My goal was to get MRUNIT rolling with limited muss/fuss, if you want to approach the incubator and suggest this model, and everyone in mrunit is fine with moving to that model (I am) then I don't see why we wouldn't move to that and deprecate having our own pages. Regards, Patrick
