camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Gale <>
Subject Re: State of the current Camel wiki documentation
Date Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:00:58 GMT

Thanks for your response.

You have confirmed my worst fears about the documentation solution. Oh
well, all those future edits I had in mind, gone.

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Brett Meyer <> wrote:
> Hey Paul, I asked the same question a couple of weeks ago -- Claus reminded
> me about the move to asciidoc in the central repo:
> However, we might consider at least adding a note to the tops of the current
> Confluence docs (assuming there's a way to do that without editing every
> single page) mentioning the stale state and future plans.  Better yet, could
> we consider setting up a redirect sooner rather than later, even if that's
> temporarily to GitHub (maybe
> On 1/18/18 4:34 PM, Paul Gale wrote:
>> Can someone with the relevant privileges investigate why snippets
>> being referenced by the Camel wiki appear to be universally broken and
>> what can be done to fix them? They are an integral part of the
>> documentation and need to work. At a glance I can see that most
>> snippets reference source files from an SVN repository which would
>> explain the breakage. However, I don't know where they should point
>> instead as removing the word 'trunk' in the file path doesn't fix it.
>> It would seem that snippet support is no longer available - I don't
>> see any reference to them in the Atlassian documentation. Perhaps said
>> support came from a plugin that's no longer installed? Guessing. Any
>> info about that would also be appreciated.
>> I understand that the current Confluence backed wiki is generated via
>> some scheduled process. Can that process itself be documented and
>> access to it granted to the entire community? I would have thought
>> opening up access would increase the likelihood of it getting fixed.
>> I've edited a number of pages on both the ActiveMQ and Camel wikis,
>> however I am not a committer (and have no plans to become one) and
>> therefore cannot step in to fix it when it breaks.
>> I recall hearing plans that Confluence would be replaced by some other
>> documentation, perhaps a wiki on Github (ugh). What's the latest on
>> that front?
>> I do hope that whatever solution is settled on does not require one to
>> be an Apache committer in order to edit the wiki documentation. Such a
>> requirement would be unacceptable to me. However, it seems to be
>> likely based on the solutions I've heard proposed elsewhere (assuming
>> the Camel community follows suite with the ActiveMQ community who
>> appear set on such an approach - reasonable assumption given the
>> overlap between the respective communities) that documentation be
>> embedded in the sourcecode, extracted using a tool that would then
>> generate the site, or something similar. Any approach along those
>> lines would likely reduce the pool size of available wiki editors to
>> just those with commit rights. Given that committers have openly
>> stated their reluctance/dislike/opposition to ever writing
>> documentation then such solutions seem unwise and detrimental to the
>> community as a whole. I'm not convinced by the logic used to justify
>> these solutions that because the documentation is inline with the code
>> that it's more likely to be kept up to date and accurate. I therefore
>> strongly urge the community to reconsider.
>> Thanks,
>> Paul

View raw message