On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 02:08 -0700, Kevin Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > What I'm still very hopeful to see is a Wiki system (any > > flavor will do) for Shindig. > > > > The lack of documentation and possibilities for people to > > contribute too- has really held our adoptation back a bit, and > > caused many duplicate threads on the same subjects to happen. > > > > On the other hand i remember infrastructure@ saying that a > > zone should not be used for anything important? > > > > Yeah, I'd be cautious about anything that needs to persist data on the > > zone. > > That is not entirely correct. :-) Your zone will not suddenly vanish or > being wiped. However, any substantial service for a project (e.g. a doc > site, downloads, you name it) should at some point be migrated off a > zone and onto infrastructure proper. Zones are project-maintained and > running stuff off a zone means that there is e.g. no mirroring of > content available. Also, I'm not sure if Zones are backed up at all. > > A zone is intended to run all the developer/committer related support > stuff like e.g. continuous build. It would be fine BTW to run a sample > container on the zone if you slap a .htaccess file on top of it (run > Apache in front of Tomcat) or request container authorization (with > straight Tomcat) and allow only committers/developers access to the > container. > > The problem is scalability inside the Apache infrastructure, not running > services. The zone machines are shared machines that don't serve for a > single project. > > > > A hosted wiki would probably work. google sites might work ok for > > this, though I still prefer something like MediaWiki in general. > > Don't go there. We have two working Wiki infrastructures (Confluence and > MoinMoin) and we have our very own JSPWiki in incubation if you feel > like setting up a Wiki on the Zone (which is fine, as long as only > committers have write access to it). I can understand infra to object to > yet another wiki-flavor-of-the-day. It's 'committer access only' that's an issue for this. We're already using confluence, and the inability for non-committers to edit documentation is a blocker. > > > Ciao > Henning > > >
