ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Let's keep Apache Ignite docs up-to-date
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2018 20:59:32 GMT
Guys,

The migration process is in the progress. Here is a discussion where we
exchanged alternate doc engines (let's keep talking there):
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Move-documentation-from-readme-io-to-GitHub-pages-td16409.html

Add to the JIRA ticket as a watcher if you wish to track the progress:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7595

The goal is to migrate to the new docs by the next Ignite 2.5 release.

--
Denis

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:43 AM, Guru Stron <gurustronpublic@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi, Igniters
>
> Missed this discussion
>
> +1 for git docs, as far as i can see this approach is used by many projects
> and it seems to be quite good.
>
>
> On 6 March 2018 at 11:44, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > Bumping up this discussion.
> >
> > I have recently found out that we have this process for documenting new
> > releases [1] which looks quite ridiculous to me.
> >
> > First, creating a copy of page with next-version suffix is inconvenient
> and
> > error-prone: the next-version page is not visible to anyone, moreover,
> all
> > suggested edits to current documentation will be lost after the page copy
> > is created. Second, the documentation changes should be transparent to
> > users, but now a regular user cannot even review upcoming changes until
> > they are granted a permission to see/edit hidden pages.
> >
> > Unless we have very strong reasons to keep documentation on readme.io
> (by
> > strong I mean a feature that cannot be implemented using a VCS + doc
> > generator), I would at least spend some time piloting the 'keep docs in
> the
> > VCS' approach.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Document
> >
> > 2017-11-02 10:07 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > I don't like git docs idea, it will require to follow whole
> > > PR-review-process that requires long time. IMO it is odd work.
> > > If readme.io provides review process, I suggest to keep it as-is.
> > >
> > > чт, 2 нояб. 2017 г. в 9:57, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> vozerov@gridgain.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for moving docs under Git provided that we find a way to update
> > docs
> > > > > outside of AI release as it is possible now with readme.io.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am HUGE +1 for that. The whole problem is that we haven't found a
> way
> > > > yet. All I want is to update a page and have it commit to GIT and
> > become
> > > > available to public right away. Does anyone know any tool that
> supports
> > > it?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message