Note: View support is only available starting in Hive 0.6.
I added this caveat when I added the CREATE/DROP view section to the DDL page. For the most part, we've been following this convention, and I think we should keep it up whatever the final decision on docs is (copy from wiki to xdocs during release, or maintain only in xdocs).
Personally, I find wiki much friendlier in general, but the wiki software (MoinMoin) we are using leaves a lot to be desired compared to mediawiki or Confluence.
On Jul 15, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Edward Capriolo wrote:
So a user is running hive and reads the wiki, and says "Wow we have
view support, let me try this" This fails because views are only in
trunk. This gives people a general bad impression about hive because
they expect trunk features, because they have no authoritative
documentation on THEIR VERSION. Users can be fickle and if they hit
incorrect documentation they start to get the impression the software
is "buggy" suddenly they start questioning everything and bringing
every problem to the hive administrator because even though they wrote
a query wrong their first instinct is to "blame hive".
I find editing xdocs EASIER then working with wiki. Wiki is great and
all but in my travels I have to work on 5 different wiki's they all
are slightly different in what they support and their mark up. We
should be able to commit xdoc patches without full unit tests. Keeping
the xdoc up to date should not be an issue because we should simply
not accept a patch that changes/adds functionality without some xdoc.
Another issue right now is there are features that are NOT documented
anywhere. When a user asks about those features I have to send them to
Jira tickets, often times the ticket will have a long back and forth
where the feature is debated, or sometimes just a patch, you never see
the full syntax, it can be very confusing,I often end up telling them
to dig through a .q file inside a patch to figure out what this
feature is and how to use it. While most people are good about
updating the wiki we know that things tend to fall though the cracks.
I think there is still a place for wiki, free form, multi-person
planning, etc but I do not think a mature software product can every
have authoritative documentation in a wiki.