OSDir


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] Use Confluence wiki for non-user-facing stuff



Hi Everyone, 


(a) should we do it? -- I like the idea of having a wiki, yes. Mainly to differentiate the documentation we cater to users and the one we cater to contributors. For things like user examples, and more demo-y content, I'd suggest we still host it in the Website. 

(b) what should go there? -- The ultimate purpose of the wiki should be to host everything needed to a) get started (with official documentation) and b) how to get the most out of Beam (here is where I see things like what Robert suggested could fit, tips, tricks and other cool things created by and for our contributors.) 

(c) what should not go there? -- Any demos, examples or showcases. I think that material should be either embedded or linked (listed) in the website.

Tu summarize, I'd like to see the wiki to be a knowledge collection for people who contribute to the project and the website the collection of information that allows someone to make the decision to use Beam (or join the community). 

When we are ready to vote on the creation of a wiki, I'd like to propose that the first thing we document there is the Beam Improvement plan along side with a concrete "Get Started Contributing to Beam" cheatsheet.

WDYT?


On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 09:34, Alexey Romanenko <aromanenko.dev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+1 for having Wiki for devs and users.

Even though editing interface is not so native and obvious (comparing to Google docs), but, at least, it will be already put in one place and should be much more easy to search and discover.

The only my concern about Wiki (based on using it in other different projects) that, in course of time, the information becomes outdated and weak structured which makes this not so valuable and even deceptive.

WBR,
Alexey

On 12 Jun 2018, at 18:01, Robert Bradshaw <robertwb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:40 PM Kenneth Knowles <klk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OK, yea, that all makes sense to me. Like this?

 - site/documentation: writing just for users
 - site/contribute: basic stuff as-is, writing for users to entice them, links to the next...
 - wiki/contributors: contributors writing just for each other

And you also have

 - wiki/users: users writing for users

That's interesting.

Yep. We don't have to start wiki/users right away, but it could be useful down the line.  

 
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:30 PM Robert Bradshaw <robertwb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 2:18 PM Kenneth Knowles <klk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 
I disagree strongly here - I don't think the wiki will have appropriate polish for users. Even if carefully polished I don't think the presentation style is right, and it is not flexible. Power users will find it, of course.

I wasn't imagining a wiki as a platform for developers to author documentation, rather a place for users to author content for other users (tips and tricks, handy PTransforms, etc.) at a much lower bar than expecting users to go in and update our documentation. I agree with the goal of not (further) fragmenting our documentation. 

As for mixing contributor vs. user information on the same site, I think it's valuable to have some integration and treat the two as a continuum (after all, our (direct) users are already developers) and consider it an asset to have a "contribute" heading right in the main site. (Perhaps, if it's confusing, we could move it all the way to the right.) I don't think we'll be doing ourselves a favor by blinding copying all the existing docs to a wiki. That being said I think it makes sense to start playing with using a wiki, and see how much value that adds on top of what we already have. 
 
 
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 12:05 PM Thomas Weise <thw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+1 most of the contributor material could live on Wiki and there it will be easier to maintain (perhaps the lower bar for updates will lead to more information and increased maintenance). Contribution policy related material should remain on the website and go through proper review/versioning.


On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Udi Meiri <ehudm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(a) Yes.
(b) I'm interested in putting documentation for contributors there. (test triage guide, precommit and postcommit guidelines, processes, etc.)
It'd be faster than having to go through the motions of a github pull request and a review process.
(c) Anything that goes to a wide audience, such as SDK users. That would need review.

Also, have you looked at https://wiki.apache.org/general/ ? (not sure if that's Confluence)


On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:07 AM Andrew Pilloud <apilloud@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+1 It would be really nice to have a lightweight place to share that is more searchable then random Google docs.

Andrew

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 9:35 AM Anton Kedin <kedin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+1

(a) we should;
(b) I think it will be a good place for all of the things you list; 
(c) introductory things, like "getting started", or "programming guide" that people not deeply involved in the project would expect to find on beam.apache.org should stay there, not in the wiki;

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 12:56 AM Etienne Chauchot <echauchot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Kenn,
I'm +1 of course. I remember that you and I and others discussed in a similar thread about dev facing docs but it got lost at some point in time.
IMHO

I would add 
- runners specifics (e.g. how runners implement state or timer, how they split data into bundles, etc...)
- probably putting online the doc I did for nexmark that summarizes the architecture and pseudo code of the queries (because some are several thousand lines of code). I often use it to recall what a given query does.

I would remove
 - BIPs / summaries of collections of JIRA
because it is hard to maintain and will end up being out of date I think.

Etienne

Le jeudi 07 juin 2018 à 13:23 -0700, Kenneth Knowles a écrit :
Hi all,

I've been in half a dozen conversations recently about whether to have a wiki and what to use it for. Some things I've heard:

 - "why is all this stuff that users don't care about here?"
 - "can we have a lighter weight place to put technical references for contributors"

So I want to consider as a community starting up our wiki. Ideas for what could go there:

 - Collection of links to design docs like https://beam.apache.org/contribute/design-documents/
 - Specialized walkthroughs like https://beam.apache.org/contribute/docker-images/
 - Best-effort notes that just try to help out like https://beam.apache.org/contribute/intellij/
 - Docs on in-progress stuff like https://beam.apache.org/documentation/runners/jstorm/
 - Expanded instructions for committers, more than https://beam.apache.org/contribute/committer-guide/
 - BIPs / summaries of collections of JIRA
 - Docs sitting in markdown in the repo like https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/sdks/CONTAINERS.md and https://github.com/apache/beam-site/blob/asf-site/README.md (which will soon not be a toplevel README)

What do you think?

(a) should we do it?
(b) what should go there?
(c) what should not go there?

Kenn