Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Adding to the phpgw wiki...

[Adam Hull]

You bring up some good points which reflect how this all came about. Lack of
phpgroupware documentation is why the axis wiki was created. I set it up to be a
place for people to "develop" docs for phpgw (and axisgw). The phpgw wiki is a 
new
thing. So, think of the axis wiki as the developer docs site that you describe. 
If
the docs don't exist in the axis wiki, chances are, they do not exist. But they 
are
there for anyone to take, including the phpgw team to put into phpgroupware. And
you're right, we should make this clearer for everyone because although our two
projects have different names, we do work together. We just have slightly 
different
focuses.

Also, I think you have an unconventional definition of "fork". Forks typically 
mean
incompatibility, so, I just want you to understand that axisgw is 100% 
compatible
with phpgw.

Izzy Blacklock (address@hidden) wrote:
>
>On Sunday 23 Mar 2003 4:54 pm, Adam Hull wrote:
>> I was curious about this too, but apparently one must be a developer to
>> contribute to the phpgw wiki.
>>
>> Axis Groupware's wiki is open to the public. So, I welcome any
>> documentation you would like to contribute, especially with regard to LDAP.
>> This has been a sore spot for me as well. Please add to this document:
>> http://docs.axisgroupware.org/index.php?page=phpGroupwareDocs
>
>Thanks, I will.  However, I think it would be better for both projects if
>phpGroupware documents where handled by the phpgw project and these documents
>mirrored or linked to your project.  It doesn't benefit anyone to have two
>separate documentation repositories for the same project.  This will lead to
>duplication of efforts at the very least and likely incomplete documents on
>both sides.  I don't need the extra hassle of having to read two versions of
>documents maintained by different parties when I'm trying to learn how to
>deploy something.  My life's already complicated enough.
>
>> Axis Groupware is a distribution of phpgroupware, NOT a fork. I intend to
>> make no changes to the API itself. And the changes I do make to the
>> applications and templates are completely self-serving. I am merely
>> scratching and itch and want to release it for others to use. Some of the
>> apps are still rough around the edge's but offer features that the core
>> phpgw apps do not. So, if this interests you, great, if not that's fine
>> too.
>
>I haven't had the time to look into how your distribution differs from the
>official phpgw release.  The fact that your apps have features that the core
>phpgw apps do not does, in my mind, create a fork.  This is not necessarily a
>bad thing.  In fact, I've seen forks in other projects which turn out to be
>good (Samba comes to mind).  That is not my concern.  I'm more worried about
>the confused state of documentation.  Already apixgw seems to have better,
>more current documentation then phpgw.  I think this is in part because of
>the open nature of your wiki. Sadly, as a sysadmin trying to deploy phpgw, I
>worry about compatibility issues with any documentation that comes from a
>project with a different name;  fork or not! :(
>
>As I mentioned in my reply to Dave Hall, I think a development wiki should be
>created for the phpgw project.  It makes sense that both projects should
>cooperate in it's creation.  ie, the existing documentation in both locations
>should be brought together in a single location, I don't care which, and one
>site should link to the other.  In this way, a single document repository is
>being created with a common purpose; to make my life, and the life of other
>sysadmins easier!  The resulting documentation can then be used as
>contributions to the more polished "official" documentation.
>
>...Izzy
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Phpgroupware-developers mailing list
>address@hidden
>http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
>
>