On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 03:51 -0700, Kevin Brown wrote:
> 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.
As Henning says, we have enough unmaintained wikis at Apache and don't
need more!
I'm afraid I missed the context for the desire for a wiki. I'd
appreciate some filling in :-)
Basically, the options as it currently stands are:
1) A moin wiki, which anyone can create an account on. It is just a
wiki, as the legal rights to the content cannot be validated, and
therefore cannot be included in a release
2) A confluence wiki, used in the same way as above - non-committers
can write to the wiki, but the content cannot be published on an
apache.org site nor included in a release
3) A confluence wiki with controlled subscription - subscriptions here
are restricted to those that have signed a CLA. Typically that is
committers, however, anyone can fax in an iCLA if they wish. This
way, Apache knows the legality of the content, and can therefore
republish it without any legal risk
Do any of those fit the scenario you are proposing?
If folks want infrastructure stuff, I'd encourage you to subscribe to
the infrastructure list and talk about it there. Yes, it can be hard to
get stuff up and running at Apache, but once it is running, it is much
more likely to keep running even after you have lost interest in it.
Regards, Upayavira
