ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github
Date Tue, 04 Aug 2020 18:08:13 GMT
Hi Alex,

Certainly, the new documentation should not be treated as a showstopper,
and if the code is ready much earlier, then we can release the docs on
readme.io.

But, it's not clear what's the documentation readiness status. As per our
updated release process, the docs need to be ready before the voting is
started [1]. That change was discussed and introduced after our
lessons-learned conversations related to the 2.8 release.

Could you please help to figure out the status by preparing a list of
documentation tasks that must be completed before the voting time (all
significant features and changes)? The "most important tasks" section [2]
already lists most of them, but the list might be incomplete. For example,
the tracing feature should be added in 2.9, but it's not in the important
tasks list. There might be something else profound that we should put on
paper.

Once we get the list, we can start working with the contributors in charge
to get things done. If some documentation pages won't be finished in 2
weeks from now, then it's reasonable to contribute the 2.9 docs to the new
docs repository that will be ready for the release in 3-4 weeks. Just my
thinking.

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.1EnsureDocumentationReadinessandAccouncementBlogPostActivity
[2]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Themostimportantreleasetasks

-
Denis


On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:54 AM Alex Plehanov <plehanov.alex@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Denis,
>
> We have some performance drop on benchmarks, so we need some time to find
> problematic commit and analyze it. I hope this will be completed during the
> current week and we move to the "Vote preparation" phase to the start of
> next week.
> I think waiting for another month due to documentation it's too much.
> Do we have an option to release with documentation on readme.io and then
> move documentation in the new format during next month?
>
>
>
> пн, 3 авг. 2020 г. в 17:55, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
>
> > I would wait for 3-4 weeks and release the new docs in 2.9. It means that
> > the release should be announced the first week of September which is not
> a
> > huge slip. Moreover, it feels like the testing phase and release
> procedures
> > will not be completed sooner.
> >
> > So, I would suggest contributing 2.9 related page to the new
> documentation
> > repository.
> >
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > On Monday, August 3, 2020, Artem Budnikov <a.budnikov.ignite@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Maxim,
> > >
> > > The new docs project is not finished yet. There are still a lot of
> pages
> > > to port to the new format, and we are still working on the integration
> > with
> > > the web-site. Nevertheless, we can try to publish the Ignite 2.9
> > > documentation on the web-site in the new format. The documentation will
> > not
> > > be 100% complete, but it will be updated significantly and will contain
> > > most of the information our users need. Actually, I would like to do
> > that,
> > > but it all depends on how much time I have before Ignite 2.9 is
> released.
> > > I'd say 2-3 weeks would be enough for me to finish all tasks that are
> > > critical for the publication.
> > >
> > > If we can wait with release 2.9 that much time, then I'll prepare the
> > > instruction on how to contribute to the docs.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > -Artem
> > >
> > > On 03.08.2020 12:24, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> > >
> > >> Artem,
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to submit some documentation changes for 2.9 release. Should
> > >> I update docs on readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:06, Artem Budnikov
> > >> <a.budnikov.ignite@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Alex,
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry, I missed this message. There is still a lot of work on the
> docs.
> > >>> When is version 2.9 going to be released?
> > >>>
> > >>> -Artem
> > >>>
> > >>> On 22.07.2020 10:35, Alex Plehanov wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Guys,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What about documentation for 2.9 release? Are we going to publish
it
> > on
> > >>>> readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
> > >>>> What about new edits? Should we still edit pages on readme.io or
> > >>>> already
> > >>>> make changes in git repository?
> > >>>> Artem, could you please clarify the current documentation workflow?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> пн, 20 июл. 2020 г. в 16:42, Artem Budnikov <
> > >>>> a.budnikov.ignite@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Denis,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it
to the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> website
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> repository? Did you have a chance to think through this
step?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Yes, I'll look into this this week. This shouldn't be very
> difficult.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -Artem
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 18.07.2020 00:43, Denis Magda wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Worked out well on my end. Thanks for sending the update!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing
it to
> the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> website
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> repository? Did you have a chance to think through this
step?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -
> > >>>>>> Denis
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:27 AM Artem Budnikov <
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> a.budnikov.ignite@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I've prepared the initial set of source files for the
Ignite
> > >>>>>>> documentation. If you are interested, you can take
a look at
> > >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want
to view the
> > docs
> > >>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>> your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions.
Some
> > people
> > >>>>>>> had
> > >>>>>>> troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction
on
> > how
> > >>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>> use jekyll docker image.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If you have any comments on the overall approach, please
let me
> > know.
> > >>>>>>> The styles and content are still a work in progress,
so please
> > don't
> > >>>>>>> report issues related to that.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> -Artem
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> +1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow
an easier
> > >>>>>>>> contribution
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link
(submit PR
> > for
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> docs)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> to the document page on site.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps
docs for it's
> > >>>>>>>> products
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> separate repos, for example.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov <
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> a.budnikov.ignite@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> OK, let's give it a try.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The way I see it, the documentation source
files will be
> located
> > in
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> "/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc
files, and
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> build
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let
you know
> > when
> > >>>>>>>>> basic setup is ready.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> -Artem
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I believe that by keeping the documentation
sources in the
> same
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> repository
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> with the source code will help us to prepare
and release all
> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> release
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting
raw documentation
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> ascii-doc
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> pages in the main Ignite repo. However,
the HTML version needs
> > to
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> reside
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> the Ignite website, which is similar to
the API docs. We can
> > >>>>>>>>>> create
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> tools
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> to do this in one click.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache,
quite the opposite,
> > and
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> they
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> suit the documentation contribution process better. It's
ok if
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> committers
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> to the documentation merge the changes first and
ask for a
> review
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> later
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> needed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>>>>> Denis
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov
<
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> a.budnikov.ignite@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Pavel,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so: we can't add snippets
pointing to new APIs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> from a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate repo,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Snippets are kept together with the
docs, they /don't need/
> to
> > be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> stored
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable
and up
> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> date.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I update the docs and API samples for features
that hasn't been
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> released
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a
problem. I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> understand
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples,
but
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this:
Let's think
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> about
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm
pretty sure
> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>> inconvenience can be solved technically.
But I need time to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> think it
> > >>>>>>>>>>> through.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> we can't see the docs when doing global
search (and/or
> replace)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> the IDE.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I think you can add the docs repo to
your IDE as a project. I
> > >>>>>>>>>>> used
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> do
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime
Text, because
> > it's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> more
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> convenient to me. We are looking at it from different
> > perspectives.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> trying to create a process that is comfortable
for tech writers
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> rather
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind
of a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> compromise:)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to
Apache master,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same should happen for the
docs, separate repo or not.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But a separate repo will require
separate
> > ownership/management
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (probably?),
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but we already have everything
in the main repo, why
> > introduce
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> overhead?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Just think about it from my perspective.
That creates a HUUUGE
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> overhead
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> for technical writers who work on the docs, and
they are the
> ones
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> who
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> provide 90% of updates. I agree about the review process,
and I'm
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> going
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> to think it over. But now it seems that we don't
have to impose
> > any
> > >>>>>>>>>>> strict process that impedes preparation
of the docs.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> -Artem
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 23.06.2020 15:35, Pavel Tupitsyn
wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> all your pros points work just
as well for a separate
> > repository
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so: we can't add
snippets pointing to new APIs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> from a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> separate repo,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> we can't see the docs when doing
global search (and/or
> > replace)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> the IDE.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am able to freely commit to master
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, no one is able to "freely"
commit code to Apache
> master,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Same should happen for the docs,
separate repo or not.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> But a separate repo will require
separate
> ownership/management
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> (probably?),
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> but we already have everything
in the main repo, why
> introduce
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> overhead?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:59 PM Artem Budnikov
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> <a.budnikov.ignite@gmail.com
<mailto:a.budnikov.ignite@gmai
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> l.com>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          Pavel,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          As far as I can see, all
your pros points work just
> > as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> for a
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>          separate repository (except for "everybody
knows about
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> it"). I
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> don't
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>          mind keeping the docs in Ignite
repo as long as I am
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> able to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> freely
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>          commit to master. Will I be able
to do that?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          -Artem
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          On 23.06.2020 14:04, Pavel
Tupitsyn wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          > Ilya, Artem,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          > "Separate repo just
because we can't finish docs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> before
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> release"
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>          > does not make sense to me. My proposal
is:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          > - Working version
is in the master branch
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          > - When a release
branch is created, e.g.
> > ignite-2.9,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> create
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>          > ignite-2.9-docs and update it as
long as we want.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          > Pros (compared to
a separate repo):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          > - Docs can be updated
along with the code, same
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> review
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> process
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>          > - Visibility - everyone knows about
main repo, docs
> are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          searchable together
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          > with code in the
IDE
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          > - Code snippets can
reference the actual code and
> > we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> sure
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>          they compile
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          > - Code snippets can
be tested on TC
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          > GridGain uses a separate
repo for their docs, and
> > it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> proved
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>          be less than
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          > optimal.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          > Especially when adding
samples for new APIs which
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> are not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> yet
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>          released.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020
at 1:19 PM Artem Budnikov
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          <a.budnikov.ignite@gmail.com
<mailto:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> a.budnikov.ignite@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>          > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >> Pavel,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >> Yes, I mean a
separate repository. The reason is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          documentation is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >> usually updated
after the product version is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> released. As
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ilya
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>          pointed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >> out, keeping
the docs in the main Ignite
> > repository
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> entail
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>          >> completing the docs before
the release date, which
> > is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          possible under
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >> current circumstances.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >> Ilya,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >> You can look
at your company's documentation
> for a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> working
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>          prototype
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >> turned production-ready
approach. The approach
> has
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> been
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> tested
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>          for a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >> while and proved
to be successful, at least with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> respect
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> our
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>          goals here.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >> -Artem
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >> On 23.06.2020
12:48, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>> Hello!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>> I'm not really
sold on the github version yet,
> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> like to
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>          see a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>> prototype
of such documentation before
> deciding,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> so for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> me
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> it'w
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>          >>> 0
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>> Pavel, we
don't have enough discipline to make
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> sure that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> all
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>          >> documentation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>> is ready
at the time of release, and we may
> need
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> to add
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          notices here and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>> there after
a release is already out. This
> means,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> separate
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> git
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>          >> repository,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>> or at least
separate git tag on that
> repository,
> > is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> needed.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>          >>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>          >>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > --
> > -
> > Denis
> >
>

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