You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cassandra.apache.org by "ThisHosting.Rocks!" <co...@thishosting.rocks> on 2017/03/12 18:43:10 UTC
Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Hi,
My username is NickReiner and I'd like to contribute to the Cassandra wiki.
Please. :)
Nick Reiner
THR Support.
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>.
Sorry - speaking of spam - my mail client went a bit crazy. Apologies if the last message was sent a few times.
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this point, though it would take a bit of work to convert.
>
>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
>>> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to use
>>> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
>>
>> The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
>> "old-school."
>>
>> I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
>> involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
>
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>.
The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this point, though it would take a bit of work to convert.
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
>> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to use
>> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
>
> The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
> "old-school."
>
> I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
> involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by benjamin roth <br...@gmail.com>.
Hm maybe a different theme / CSS could make it look a little bit more "2017"
https://moinmo.in/HelpOnThemes
2017-03-13 16:27 GMT+01:00 Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>:
> The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be
> attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of
> individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go
> with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather
> than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t
> know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this point,
> though it would take a bit of work to convert.
>
> > On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
> >> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to
> use
> >> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
> >
> > The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
> > "old-school."
> >
> > I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
> > involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
>
>
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>.
The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this point, though it would take a bit of work to convert.
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
>> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to use
>> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
>
> The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
> "old-school."
>
> I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
> involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>.
The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this point, though it would take a bit of work to convert.
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
>> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to use
>> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
>
> The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
> "old-school."
>
> I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
> involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by benjamin roth <br...@gmail.com>.
Contribution Guide +1
Github WebUI +1
Pull requests +1
Rest: Inspect + Adapt
2017-03-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Stefan Podkowinski <sp...@apache.org>:
> Agreed. Let's not give up on this as quickly. My suggestion is to at
> least provide a getting started guide for writing docs, before
> complaining about too few contributions. I'll try to draft something up
> this week.
>
> What people are probably not aware of is how easy it is to contribute
> docs through github. Just clone our repo, create a document and add your
> content. It's all possible through the github web UI including
> reStructuredText support for the viewer/editor. I'd even say to lower
> the barrier for contributing docs even further by accepting pull
> requests for them, so we can have a fully github based workflow for
> casual contributors.
>
>
> On 03/13/2017 05:55 PM, Jonathan Haddad wrote:
> > Ugh... Let's put a few facts out in the open before we start pushing to
> > move back to the wiki.
> >
> > First off, take a look at CASSANDRA-8700. There's plenty of reasoning
> for
> > why the docs are now located in tree. The TL;DR is:
> >
> > 1. Nobody used the wiki. Like, ever. A handful of edits per year.
> > 2. Docs in the wiki were out of sync w/ cassandra. Trying to outline the
> > difference in implementations w/ nuanced behavior was difficult /
> > impossible. With in-tree, you just check the docs that come w/ the
> version
> > you installed. And you get them locally. Huzzah!
> > 3. The in-tree docs are a million times better quality than the wiki
> *ever*
> > was.
> >
> > I urge you to try giving the in-tree docs a chance. It may not be the
> way
> > *you* want it but I have to point out that they're the best we've seen in
> > Cassandra world. Making them prettier won't help anything.
> >
> > I do agree that the process needs to be a bit smoother for people to add
> > stuff to the in tree side. For instance, maybe for every features that's
> > written we start creating a corresponding JIRA for the documentation.
> Not
> > every developer wants to write docs, and that's fair. The accompanying
> > JIRA would serve as a way for 2 or more people to collaborate on the
> > feature & the docs in tandem. It may also be beneficial to use the
> dev-ml
> > to say "hey, i'm working on feature X, anyone want to help me write the
> > docs for it? check out CASSANDRA-XYZ"
> >
> > Part of CASSANDRA-8700 was to shut down the wiki. I still advocate for
> > this. At the very minimum we should make it read only with a big notice
> > that points people to the in-tree docs.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 8:49 AM Jeremy Hanna <jeremy.hanna1234@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be
> >> attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list
> of
> >> individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go
> >> with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather
> >> than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t
> >> know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this
> point,
> >> though it would take a bit of work to convert.
> >>
> >>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
> >>>> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe
> to
> >> use
> >>>> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
> >>> The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
> >>> "old-school."
> >>>
> >>> I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
> >>> involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
> >>
>
>
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Stefan Podkowinski <sp...@apache.org>.
Agreed. Let's not give up on this as quickly. My suggestion is to at
least provide a getting started guide for writing docs, before
complaining about too few contributions. I'll try to draft something up
this week.
What people are probably not aware of is how easy it is to contribute
docs through github. Just clone our repo, create a document and add your
content. It's all possible through the github web UI including
reStructuredText support for the viewer/editor. I'd even say to lower
the barrier for contributing docs even further by accepting pull
requests for them, so we can have a fully github based workflow for
casual contributors.
On 03/13/2017 05:55 PM, Jonathan Haddad wrote:
> Ugh... Let's put a few facts out in the open before we start pushing to
> move back to the wiki.
>
> First off, take a look at CASSANDRA-8700. There's plenty of reasoning for
> why the docs are now located in tree. The TL;DR is:
>
> 1. Nobody used the wiki. Like, ever. A handful of edits per year.
> 2. Docs in the wiki were out of sync w/ cassandra. Trying to outline the
> difference in implementations w/ nuanced behavior was difficult /
> impossible. With in-tree, you just check the docs that come w/ the version
> you installed. And you get them locally. Huzzah!
> 3. The in-tree docs are a million times better quality than the wiki *ever*
> was.
>
> I urge you to try giving the in-tree docs a chance. It may not be the way
> *you* want it but I have to point out that they're the best we've seen in
> Cassandra world. Making them prettier won't help anything.
>
> I do agree that the process needs to be a bit smoother for people to add
> stuff to the in tree side. For instance, maybe for every features that's
> written we start creating a corresponding JIRA for the documentation. Not
> every developer wants to write docs, and that's fair. The accompanying
> JIRA would serve as a way for 2 or more people to collaborate on the
> feature & the docs in tandem. It may also be beneficial to use the dev-ml
> to say "hey, i'm working on feature X, anyone want to help me write the
> docs for it? check out CASSANDRA-XYZ"
>
> Part of CASSANDRA-8700 was to shut down the wiki. I still advocate for
> this. At the very minimum we should make it read only with a big notice
> that points people to the in-tree docs.
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 8:49 AM Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn\u2019t be
>> attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of
>> individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go
>> with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather
>> than confluence. That\u2019s my understanding of the history there. I don\u2019t
>> know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this point,
>> though it would take a bit of work to convert.
>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
>>>> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to
>> use
>>>> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
>>> The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
>>> "old-school."
>>>
>>> I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
>>> involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
>>
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Anthony Grasso <an...@gmail.com>.
On 14 March 2017 at 03:55, Jonathan Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
>
> I urge you to try giving the in-tree docs a chance. It may not be the way
> *you* want it but I have to point out that they're the best we've seen in
> Cassandra world. Making them prettier won't help anything.
>
Agreed
>
> Part of CASSANDRA-8700 was to shut down the wiki. I still advocate for
> this. At the very minimum we should make it read only with a big notice
> that points people to the in-tree docs.
>
Agreed. Am unable to see the value that the old wiki provides. We should at
the very least change it to say it is deprecated and point to the in-tree
docs. I am more than happy to make these changes if we think this is a good
idea.
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 8:49 AM Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be
> > attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of
> > individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go
> > with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather
> > than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t
> > know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this
> point,
> > though it would take a bit of work to convert.
> >
> > > On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
> > >> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe
> to
> > use
> > >> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
> > >
> > > The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
> > > "old-school."
> > >
> > > I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
> > > involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
> >
> >
>
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Jonathan Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com>.
Ugh... Let's put a few facts out in the open before we start pushing to
move back to the wiki.
First off, take a look at CASSANDRA-8700. There's plenty of reasoning for
why the docs are now located in tree. The TL;DR is:
1. Nobody used the wiki. Like, ever. A handful of edits per year.
2. Docs in the wiki were out of sync w/ cassandra. Trying to outline the
difference in implementations w/ nuanced behavior was difficult /
impossible. With in-tree, you just check the docs that come w/ the version
you installed. And you get them locally. Huzzah!
3. The in-tree docs are a million times better quality than the wiki *ever*
was.
I urge you to try giving the in-tree docs a chance. It may not be the way
*you* want it but I have to point out that they're the best we've seen in
Cassandra world. Making them prettier won't help anything.
I do agree that the process needs to be a bit smoother for people to add
stuff to the in tree side. For instance, maybe for every features that's
written we start creating a corresponding JIRA for the documentation. Not
every developer wants to write docs, and that's fair. The accompanying
JIRA would serve as a way for 2 or more people to collaborate on the
feature & the docs in tandem. It may also be beneficial to use the dev-ml
to say "hey, i'm working on feature X, anyone want to help me write the
docs for it? check out CASSANDRA-XYZ"
Part of CASSANDRA-8700 was to shut down the wiki. I still advocate for
this. At the very minimum we should make it read only with a big notice
that points people to the in-tree docs.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 8:49 AM Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be
> attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of
> individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go
> with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather
> than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t
> know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this point,
> though it would take a bit of work to convert.
>
> > On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
> >> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to
> use
> >> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
> >
> > The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
> > "old-school."
> >
> > I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
> > involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
>
>
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>.
The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this point, though it would take a bit of work to convert.
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
>> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to use
>> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
>
> The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
> "old-school."
>
> I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
> involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>.
The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this point, though it would take a bit of work to convert.
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
>> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to use
>> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
>
> The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
> "old-school."
>
> I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
> involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>.
The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this point, though it would take a bit of work to convert.
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
>> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to use
>> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
>
> The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
> "old-school."
>
> I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
> involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>.
The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this point, though it would take a bit of work to convert.
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
>> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to use
>> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
>
> The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
> "old-school."
>
> I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
> involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>.
The moinmoin wiki was preferred but because of spam, images couldn’t be attached. The options were to use confluence or have a moderated list of individuals be approved to update the wiki. The decision was made to go with the latter because of the preference to stick with moinmoin rather than confluence. That’s my understanding of the history there. I don’t know if people would like to revisit using one or the other at this point, though it would take a bit of work to convert.
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
>> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to use
>> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
>
> The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
> "old-school."
>
> I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
> involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com>.
> Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
> user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to use
> a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
The wiki is what ASF Infra provides by default. Agree that it is a bit
"old-school."
I'll ask around about what other projects are doing (or folks who are
involved in other ASF projects, please chime in).
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by benjamin roth <br...@gmail.com>.
First: I am positively surprised how many guys would like to contribute to
docs.
Some days ago I posted to the dev-list about doc-contribution. I think this
applies here again. From my point of view "in-tree docs" are a good choice
for technical references that go closely with the code versioning.
But for content-oriented docs like tutorials, FAQs, Knowledge base I think
this is not a good place especially if the doc-contributors are not that
deeply involved into dev/code.
For that purpose, Stefan Podkowinsky created a repo for collaboration that
"Proxies" access to the CS repo. Thats a nice gesture but IMHO that can
only work as an intermediate solution. "User-Docs" do not require a CI or
complex build + publishing process. They require a simple and "beautiful"
way to contribute. Especially if you wish to encourage more "outside" users
to contribute.
Isn't there a way to split tech docs (aka reference) and more
user-generated and use-case related/content oriented docs? And maybe to use
a more modern WIKI software or scheme. The CS wiki looks like 1998.
2017-03-12 23:26 GMT+01:00 Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>:
> We're trying to use the in-tree docs. Those are preferred, updating the
> wiki is OK, but the wiki is VERY out of date.
>
> --
> Jeff Jirsa
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Long Quanzheng <pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is the wiki still being used?
> > https://wiki.apache.org/cassandra
> > says:
> > Cassandra is moving away from this wiki for user-facing documentation in
> > favor of in-tree docs, linked below. (Pull requests welcome
> > <https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/trunk/doc>!)
> >
> >
> > 2017-03-12 14:21 GMT-07:00 Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> I've added you.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 1:43 PM, ThisHosting.Rocks! <
> >> contact@thishosting.rocks> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> My username is NickReiner and I'd like to contribute to the Cassandra
> >> wiki.
> >>>
> >>> Please. :)
> >>>
> >>> Nick Reiner
> >>> THR Support.
> >>>
> >>
>
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>.
We're trying to use the in-tree docs. Those are preferred, updating the wiki is OK, but the wiki is VERY out of date.
--
Jeff Jirsa
> On Mar 12, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Long Quanzheng <pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is the wiki still being used?
> https://wiki.apache.org/cassandra
> says:
> Cassandra is moving away from this wiki for user-facing documentation in
> favor of in-tree docs, linked below. (Pull requests welcome
> <https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/trunk/doc>!)
>
>
> 2017-03-12 14:21 GMT-07:00 Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com>:
>
>> I've added you.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 1:43 PM, ThisHosting.Rocks! <
>> contact@thishosting.rocks> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> My username is NickReiner and I'd like to contribute to the Cassandra
>> wiki.
>>>
>>> Please. :)
>>>
>>> Nick Reiner
>>> THR Support.
>>>
>>
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Long Quanzheng <pr...@gmail.com>.
Is the wiki still being used?
https://wiki.apache.org/cassandra
says:
Cassandra is moving away from this wiki for user-facing documentation in
favor of in-tree docs, linked below. (Pull requests welcome
<https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/trunk/doc>!)
2017-03-12 14:21 GMT-07:00 Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com>:
> I've added you.
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 1:43 PM, ThisHosting.Rocks! <
> contact@thishosting.rocks> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > My username is NickReiner and I'd like to contribute to the Cassandra
> wiki.
> >
> > Please. :)
> >
> > Nick Reiner
> > THR Support.
> >
>
Re: Contribute to the Cassandra wiki
Posted by Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com>.
I've added you.
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 1:43 PM, ThisHosting.Rocks! <
contact@thishosting.rocks> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> My username is NickReiner and I'd like to contribute to the Cassandra wiki.
>
> Please. :)
>
> Nick Reiner
> THR Support.
>