Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final)
On 31/03/2007, at 2:21 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: We're better off on cwiki than where we are now. We have no admin privileges (I'm currently locked out of editing the CONTINUUM space) Did you ask? I asked Ben for JIRA privs and that took 5 minutes. Of course. It's now filed here: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/ HAUS-1488 , and the setup is not conducive to deploying into the Apache site. cwiki is already running the stuff we need. People I trust recommend it. The stuff is a plugin which can be installed in any Confluence instance. So that's not an onerous task. We've wanted to do this for months, and this is an avenue that actually makes it easier for us - I continue to suggest we take it. I'm simply not in favour of moving anything away from Contegix. Taking the output from the export plugin and scp'ing it to people is not hard either. Sure, it's not hard, but it's still less work to use cwiki. And frankly, there's a difference between having admin access and admin responsibility - the committers on this project are already overcommitted without having to take on the project's infrastructure responsibilities as well. But, since there isn't consensus enough to move forward with even trying it on that single SCM page, I'll revisit it later after you've had a chance to try and set it up yourself. - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final)
On Mar 29, 2007, at 6:19 PM, Jeff Jensen wrote: Just not understanding yet the Maven plans for wiki/site usage. My fear, obviously, is continued "separate" works, as some people I helped with Maven have a "not happy-out-of- the-box experience", which includes scattered docs - I always have to give them multiple URLs for info and/or they keep Googling for answers. If you plan to integrate Maven site and the wiki so well like the examples you provided, then the user sees them as one source. Very nice. Just a note on this aspect too. I have a confluence client library which could be used in a plugin that automatically exports some or all of the confluence content for inclusion in other works -- releases, etc. Might be some other fun things you with the ability to easily read/write data from confluence. Some javadoc here: http://swizzle.codehaus.org/swizzle-confluence/ -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final)
On 30 Mar 07, at 10:49 AM 30 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote: While you make plenty of valid points about Contegix, it's completely unrelated to what I'm arguing for. How is starting to move things away from Contegix, which is you suggestion, not related? The subsequent argument would then be made that we already started this process so why not move the rest. Of course it's related. If you are successful in bringing them in to the ASF infrastructure as you've proposed, it should be a no-brainer to move a cwiki space to that infrastructure. So that's a non-issue as far as this discussion is concerned. We're better off on cwiki than where we are now. We have no admin privileges (I'm currently locked out of editing the CONTINUUM space) Did you ask? I asked Ben for JIRA privs and that took 5 minutes. , and the setup is not conducive to deploying into the Apache site. cwiki is already running the stuff we need. People I trust recommend it. The stuff is a plugin which can be installed in any Confluence instance. So that's not an onerous task. We've wanted to do this for months, and this is an avenue that actually makes it easier for us - I continue to suggest we take it. I'm simply not in favour of moving anything away from Contegix. Taking the output from the export plugin and scp'ing it to people is not hard either. Jason. - Brett On 31/03/2007, at 12:23 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: On 28 Mar 07, at 5:22 PM 28 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote: (moving to main dev list as scope has increased) On 29/03/2007, at 12:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: Similar to what Emmanuel suggested, how about we move *all* the current spaces to cwiki, avoiding any further fragmentation, and in fact removing the current fragmentation between the apache site and the codehaus confluence, as well as getting all of the above benefits? Before biting the bullet we can do a trial with this single SCM page. What do folks think? I think it's a bad idea to move from a stable setup we have with great support from people who have helped us at every turn. I would like to suggest we stay with Contegix wherever possible and this discussion is still ongoing with infra and they have yet to get back with SLA policies. I believe it is in the best interest of users and the community to provide the best infrastructure as possible and there is no doubt in my mind that is Contegix. For anything we have ever done for JIRA, Confluence or the Central Repository they have been there for us. We gain nothing by moving any of this to Apache. Contegix has run JIRA and Confluence for us when these services were not available at Apache and they have been more than accommodating when we needed a new repository infrastructure. I have been trying to incorporate Contegix officially into the infrastructure at Apache so that we can keep everyone happy. I am not willing, nor do I support any move to Apache without infra deciding their policies, nor am I overly excited about the possibility of any of our infrastructure being moved to a place where no one is really accountable. Contegix is responsible, accountable, a pleasure to work with and they have bent over backward to help us. We are relying on Jeff Turner who is already overworked in trying to manage our setup whereas at Contegix we have a team who are very knowledgeable about Atlassian products because they resell them. We also have people here who's first response is a derisive comment about the tools we use. My vote is for Contegix to continue the great job they have done and seeing as infra has not decided anything or contacted me after I attended the last board meeting, I am going to go ahead with an official proposal starting with our PMC to let each PMC decide on their infrastructure needs and use whomever they like working on the integration strategies and policies that will make everyone comfortable. Until that time I don't think it's prudent because you will potentially jeopardize the infrastructure used by everyone using Maven. Jason. Cheers, Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final)
While you make plenty of valid points about Contegix, it's completely unrelated to what I'm arguing for. If you are successful in bringing them in to the ASF infrastructure as you've proposed, it should be a no-brainer to move a cwiki space to that infrastructure. So that's a non-issue as far as this discussion is concerned. We're better off on cwiki than where we are now. We have no admin privileges (I'm currently locked out of editing the CONTINUUM space), and the setup is not conducive to deploying into the Apache site. cwiki is already running the stuff we need. People I trust recommend it. We've wanted to do this for months, and this is an avenue that actually makes it easier for us - I continue to suggest we take it. - Brett On 31/03/2007, at 12:23 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: On 28 Mar 07, at 5:22 PM 28 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote: (moving to main dev list as scope has increased) On 29/03/2007, at 12:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: Similar to what Emmanuel suggested, how about we move *all* the current spaces to cwiki, avoiding any further fragmentation, and in fact removing the current fragmentation between the apache site and the codehaus confluence, as well as getting all of the above benefits? Before biting the bullet we can do a trial with this single SCM page. What do folks think? I think it's a bad idea to move from a stable setup we have with great support from people who have helped us at every turn. I would like to suggest we stay with Contegix wherever possible and this discussion is still ongoing with infra and they have yet to get back with SLA policies. I believe it is in the best interest of users and the community to provide the best infrastructure as possible and there is no doubt in my mind that is Contegix. For anything we have ever done for JIRA, Confluence or the Central Repository they have been there for us. We gain nothing by moving any of this to Apache. Contegix has run JIRA and Confluence for us when these services were not available at Apache and they have been more than accommodating when we needed a new repository infrastructure. I have been trying to incorporate Contegix officially into the infrastructure at Apache so that we can keep everyone happy. I am not willing, nor do I support any move to Apache without infra deciding their policies, nor am I overly excited about the possibility of any of our infrastructure being moved to a place where no one is really accountable. Contegix is responsible, accountable, a pleasure to work with and they have bent over backward to help us. We are relying on Jeff Turner who is already overworked in trying to manage our setup whereas at Contegix we have a team who are very knowledgeable about Atlassian products because they resell them. We also have people here who's first response is a derisive comment about the tools we use. My vote is for Contegix to continue the great job they have done and seeing as infra has not decided anything or contacted me after I attended the last board meeting, I am going to go ahead with an official proposal starting with our PMC to let each PMC decide on their infrastructure needs and use whomever they like working on the integration strategies and policies that will make everyone comfortable. Until that time I don't think it's prudent because you will potentially jeopardize the infrastructure used by everyone using Maven. Jason. Cheers, Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final)
On 28 Mar 07, at 5:22 PM 28 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote: (moving to main dev list as scope has increased) On 29/03/2007, at 12:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: Similar to what Emmanuel suggested, how about we move *all* the current spaces to cwiki, avoiding any further fragmentation, and in fact removing the current fragmentation between the apache site and the codehaus confluence, as well as getting all of the above benefits? Before biting the bullet we can do a trial with this single SCM page. What do folks think? I think it's a bad idea to move from a stable setup we have with great support from people who have helped us at every turn. I would like to suggest we stay with Contegix wherever possible and this discussion is still ongoing with infra and they have yet to get back with SLA policies. I believe it is in the best interest of users and the community to provide the best infrastructure as possible and there is no doubt in my mind that is Contegix. For anything we have ever done for JIRA, Confluence or the Central Repository they have been there for us. We gain nothing by moving any of this to Apache. Contegix has run JIRA and Confluence for us when these services were not available at Apache and they have been more than accommodating when we needed a new repository infrastructure. I have been trying to incorporate Contegix officially into the infrastructure at Apache so that we can keep everyone happy. I am not willing, nor do I support any move to Apache without infra deciding their policies, nor am I overly excited about the possibility of any of our infrastructure being moved to a place where no one is really accountable. Contegix is responsible, accountable, a pleasure to work with and they have bent over backward to help us. We are relying on Jeff Turner who is already overworked in trying to manage our setup whereas at Contegix we have a team who are very knowledgeable about Atlassian products because they resell them. We also have people here who's first response is a derisive comment about the tools we use. My vote is for Contegix to continue the great job they have done and seeing as infra has not decided anything or contacted me after I attended the last board meeting, I am going to go ahead with an official proposal starting with our PMC to let each PMC decide on their infrastructure needs and use whomever they like working on the integration strategies and policies that will make everyone comfortable. Until that time I don't think it's prudent because you will potentially jeopardize the infrastructure used by everyone using Maven. Jason. Cheers, Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final)
FYI, this is a better example of a sub-site: http://geronimo.apache.org/xbean This is from the XB space which we export into this directory under our TLD. We used to do this before we had used the GMOxSITE space for the site content, though now we use both. Soon we will be stitching together a few spaces so that *most* content we have stored in cwiki will be exported to a location under http:// geronimo.apache.org. --jason On Mar 29, 2007, at 5:33 PM, Brett Porter wrote: That's exactly what this would provide. While I don't propose moving the whole site to it, I think it makes sense as an integrated subsite. Take a look at these examples: http://incubator.apache.org/openejb/ http://incubator.apache.org/openjpa/ http://geronimo.apache.org/ - Brett On 30/03/2007, at 10:27 AM, Jeff Jensen wrote: I wish it was all in one place - Maven site. Too many don't know or don't go. If it must reside elsewhere, the link to external site docs must be very prominent. -Original Message- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:26 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final) [snip] Anyone else with 2 cents to spare? - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final)
On 30/03/2007, at 11:19 AM, Jeff Jensen wrote: So what are the plans for what each would contain - Maven site and wiki? Would Maven site contain only the generated tool docs (e.g. reports like Javadoc, PMD) and would the wiki contain only hand-written user docs? I'd see the current site staying as it is (although we could work on better provision of the tools stuff again). We would have cookbook subsections of the site which would be the MAVENUSER and similar spaces drawn in under the user guides section. The MAVEN space would be arranged and brought under the developer documentation section and used for design proposals. What I can't understand by just looking at those examples is how was all that content created? Did a "mvn site" run gen some and the hand created wiki pages link to it? It's all created in confluence, and using the autoexport plugin it regularly spits out static html. They use a template to produce the look and feel. If you hit the edit links you can see the original confluence system. No argument - those are nice sites. Just not understanding yet the Maven plans for wiki/site usage. My fear, obviously, is continued "separate" works, as some people I helped with Maven have a "not happy-out-of- the-box experience", which includes scattered docs - I always have to give them multiple URLs for info and/or they keep Googling for answers. If you plan to integrate Maven site and the wiki so well like the examples you provided, then the user sees them as one source. Very nice. That's the theory :) Thanks for the feedback! - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final)
So what are the plans for what each would contain - Maven site and wiki? Would Maven site contain only the generated tool docs (e.g. reports like Javadoc, PMD) and would the wiki contain only hand-written user docs? What I can't understand by just looking at those examples is how was all that content created? Did a "mvn site" run gen some and the hand created wiki pages link to it? No argument - those are nice sites. Just not understanding yet the Maven plans for wiki/site usage. My fear, obviously, is continued "separate" works, as some people I helped with Maven have a "not happy-out-of-the-box experience", which includes scattered docs - I always have to give them multiple URLs for info and/or they keep Googling for answers. If you plan to integrate Maven site and the wiki so well like the examples you provided, then the user sees them as one source. Very nice. -Original Message- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 7:34 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final) That's exactly what this would provide. While I don't propose moving the whole site to it, I think it makes sense as an integrated subsite. Take a look at these examples: http://incubator.apache.org/openejb/ http://incubator.apache.org/openjpa/ http://geronimo.apache.org/ - Brett On 30/03/2007, at 10:27 AM, Jeff Jensen wrote: > I wish it was all in one place - Maven site. > > Too many don't know or don't go. If it must reside elsewhere, the > link to external site docs must be very prominent. > > > -Original Message- > From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:26 PM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final) > > [snip] > > Anyone else with 2 cents to spare? > > - Brett > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final)
That's exactly what this would provide. While I don't propose moving the whole site to it, I think it makes sense as an integrated subsite. Take a look at these examples: http://incubator.apache.org/openejb/ http://incubator.apache.org/openjpa/ http://geronimo.apache.org/ - Brett On 30/03/2007, at 10:27 AM, Jeff Jensen wrote: I wish it was all in one place - Maven site. Too many don't know or don't go. If it must reside elsewhere, the link to external site docs must be very prominent. -Original Message- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:26 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final) [snip] Anyone else with 2 cents to spare? - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final)
I wish it was all in one place - Maven site. Too many don't know or don't go. If it must reside elsewhere, the link to external site docs must be very prominent. -Original Message- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:26 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final) [snip] Anyone else with 2 cents to spare? - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final)
On 29/03/2007, at 7:47 AM, John Casey wrote: I can't say that I care much one way or another, when it comes to moving all doco from the codehaus wiki to cwiki or leaving it as-is...provided the conversion is 100% successful, and cwiki is stable. The stability point is a concern for me, since I've seen some pretty ugly messes with ASF infra in the past. I asked David Blevins and from a technical perspective he recommends using cwiki. He has found it to be sufficiently stable and the volunteers responsive. Of bigger concern to me is the fact that the MAVEN space is such a mess... When we get to that point, I'd be happy to organise and document a structure for it. It's not actually as messy as it looks. One thing that is interesting is that wiki content wouldn't be affected by confluence outages, since it's exported to the static pages...and I'm not sure it's a great idea to have something like setup that between ASF and codehaus...it's only adding moving parts that can fail. Agreed. Is there a reason I should get fired up about either outcome? Because you're fired up about documentation? :) I think everyone agreed the cookbook idea was a good one before, I think this is a concrete step towards making it happen. Anyone else with 2 cents to spare? - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final)
I can't say that I care much one way or another, when it comes to moving all doco from the codehaus wiki to cwiki or leaving it as-is...provided the conversion is 100% successful, and cwiki is stable. The stability point is a concern for me, since I've seen some pretty ugly messes with ASF infra in the past. Of bigger concern to me is the fact that the MAVEN space is such a mess... One thing that is interesting is that wiki content wouldn't be affected by confluence outages, since it's exported to the static pages...and I'm not sure it's a great idea to have something like setup that between ASF and codehaus...it's only adding moving parts that can fail. Is there a reason I should get fired up about either outcome? -john On 3/28/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (moving to main dev list as scope has increased) On 29/03/2007, at 12:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > On 28 Mar 07, at 9:03 AM 28 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote: > >> >> On 28/03/2007, at 10:35 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: >> >>> >>> No, please don't fragment even more our documentation situation. >>> We have the stuff in SVN, Confluence users spaces and developer >>> works spaces. The autoexport could easily be setup with the space >>> we have if it isn't already. >> >> This documentation is already in its own space, so it's low >> impact. I believe it is not currently editable by users, and only >> a couple of pages. This does no harm to the current situation, and >> gives us the opportunity to try it out. >> >> Reasons I believe cwiki is a better choice: >> - autoexport is already configured. No work to do. >> - We have a greater level of access than we do at codehaus. >> - No banner ads. >> - It's back on the apache.org domain. >> >> I don't see any downside... >> > > Other then the severe one one of fragmenting our documentation. Do > what you like. On 28/03/2007, at 11:16 PM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: > We'd can use the codehaus wiki for our dev/design pages and for > users pages we'd can use the cwiki with the autoexport and the > maven css to include the content in our site. > I think it would be good to do it for our other products, so we'd > can create easily cookbooks, but this ML isn't the place to discuss > it ;) Similar to what Emmanuel suggested, how about we move *all* the current spaces to cwiki, avoiding any further fragmentation, and in fact removing the current fragmentation between the apache site and the codehaus confluence, as well as getting all of the above benefits? Before biting the bullet we can do a trial with this single SCM page. What do folks think? Cheers, Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confluence (was: We're near the release of 1.0 final)
(moving to main dev list as scope has increased) On 29/03/2007, at 12:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: On 28 Mar 07, at 9:03 AM 28 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote: On 28/03/2007, at 10:35 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: No, please don't fragment even more our documentation situation. We have the stuff in SVN, Confluence users spaces and developer works spaces. The autoexport could easily be setup with the space we have if it isn't already. This documentation is already in its own space, so it's low impact. I believe it is not currently editable by users, and only a couple of pages. This does no harm to the current situation, and gives us the opportunity to try it out. Reasons I believe cwiki is a better choice: - autoexport is already configured. No work to do. - We have a greater level of access than we do at codehaus. - No banner ads. - It's back on the apache.org domain. I don't see any downside... Other then the severe one one of fragmenting our documentation. Do what you like. On 28/03/2007, at 11:16 PM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: We'd can use the codehaus wiki for our dev/design pages and for users pages we'd can use the cwiki with the autoexport and the maven css to include the content in our site. I think it would be good to do it for our other products, so we'd can create easily cookbooks, but this ML isn't the place to discuss it ;) Similar to what Emmanuel suggested, how about we move *all* the current spaces to cwiki, avoiding any further fragmentation, and in fact removing the current fragmentation between the apache site and the codehaus confluence, as well as getting all of the above benefits? Before biting the bullet we can do a trial with this single SCM page. What do folks think? Cheers, Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]