JVSD isn't labeled as Experimental because it isn't even on develop or in part of any Geode release candidate. As far as I know, it exists only on an incomplete and out-of-date feature branch. Hence, my vote is to remove any mention of it from the docs until it merges to develop or at a minimum gets updated (rebased) from develop (or M3).
Has anyone done any rebasing or other work on the JVSD branch that I'm not aware of? -Kirk On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> wrote: > I would vote for including it as an "experimental" feature. > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dave Barnes <dbar...@pivotal.io > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Process for handling Experimental docs is still being hammered out. > Common > > element among working scenarios is isolation from the body of the User > > Guide proper, so I'll remove the JVSD component from the User Guide's > Tools > > and Modules section. > > Could go on the Wiki, could go in an appendix. We'll see what emerges. > > Any favorites among the readers of this thread? > > Silence = "Docs group gets to pick" > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > Truthfully, I don't think this is any different than API features that > > have > > > been annotated with "@Experimental" (e.g. LucenceService > > > <http://geode.incubator.apache.org/releases/latest/ > > > javadoc/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneService.html>). > > > I.e. nothing is going to stop a user from trying to use a > > > feature/function/tool and searching for relevant information on how to > > use > > > it if they know it exists, either explicitly or implicitly. > > > > > > In fact, I would think it is advantageous if they know it does exist, > > even > > > prior to an official release, so that feedback can be gathered. > > > > > > If it is not to be part of the "official" User Guide, perhaps a Wiki > page > > > (other than the specification > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode> > > > [1]) > > > or better yet, a GitHub README page along with the source code if users > > are > > > given access to build and use the tool themselves. > > > > > > If part of the "official" User Guide (under tools), then perhaps a > > > "Experimental" label. > > > > > > Food for thought. > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is included > in > > > the > > > > source and binary release distributions will only confuse users. +1 > > for > > > > removing. > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <dbar...@pivotal.io > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See > > > > > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html. > > > > > Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this? > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode 1.0 > docs. > > > > Right > > > > >> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the docs > > > should > > > > >> only cover what's in Geode 1.0. > > > > >> > > > > >> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future features or > > > > features > > > > >> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that would > > > probably > > > > be > > > > >> an appropriate place to mention jVSD. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Kirk > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister < > > > > jmcallis...@pivotal.io <javascript:;>> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <dbar...@pivotal.io > <javascript:;> > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The current > > > > >> writeup > > > > >>> is > > > > >>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that it's > not > > > > >> fully > > > > >>>> baked and we don't support it". > > > > >>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io > <javascript:;> > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at this > > point, > > > > >>>> because > > > > >>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0 release > more > > > > >>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I > think > > > the > > > > >>>> should > > > > >>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make it > > easier > > > > >> for > > > > >>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> -Dan > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -John > > > 503-504-8657 > > > john.blum10101 (skype) > > > > > >
