Hi All, I've altered the documentation and created a PR against the "asf-site" branch due to absence of a master branch (instead of pushing to a branch directly). In the comments, I've tried to explain the changes I made. In summary, most of our packages, metadata for datasets, admin client and more are named with "hoodie". For now, I've just made some cosmetic name changes in the docs from "hoodie" -> "hudi" since performing a widespread rename does not make sense. My guess is we can have an initial version of the site ready with such changes, iterate on it and come up with a plan as we migrate the codebase but I'd love to hear your thoughts around this.
Thanks, Nishith On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:38 PM nishith agarwal <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I'll get to it later tonight. > > Thanks, > Nishith > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:04 PM Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Nishith, are you working on the site? Just wanted to confirm and see if >> you >> need more help from one of us. >> >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:21 PM Vinoth Chandar < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > What thomas says, makes sense to me. For now, we can just import site >> into >> > asf-site and make a call on what we check into master down the line? >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:17 PM Vinoth Chandar < >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Guess it does nt clutter source code with docs, js, css etc? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 7:46 PM nishith agarwal <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I vote for #3 as well. Yes, I'll take up the lead on this. >> >>> BTW, why is creating a separate branch (asf-site) so popular ? I see >> that >> >>> many projects have done that. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Nishith >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:13 PM Anbu Cheeralan <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > I prefer #3 that will keep the documentation in-sync with the code. >> >>> > >> >>> > On 2019/01/24 21:27:39, Vinoth Chandar < >> [email protected]> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> > > Hello all, >> >>> > > >> >>> > > Just summarizing how the current project documentation is setup >> and >> >>> then >> >>> > > use this thread to discuss how we want to proceed. Its based on >> >>> Jekyll >> >>> > and >> >>> > > markup.To build Hudi docs, you just need to install gem/ruby set >> and >> >>> spin >> >>> > > up Jekyll. >> >>> > > https://idratherbewriting.com/documentation-theme-jekyll/ has >> >>> > > instructions. >> >>> > > >> >>> > > We have a few options to manage docs. >> >>> > > >> >>> > > 1. Separate repo (away from source code) >> >>> > > 2. Special branch along with code (asf-site branch here >> >>> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-hudi ) >> >>> > > 3. Checked into a top level docs folder on all branches (current >> >>> > approach) >> >>> > > >> >>> > > I vote for #3. I have do #2 on a previous open source project and >> the >> >>> > code >> >>> > > kept diverging from docs. >> >>> > > >> >>> > > What do you all think? >> >>> > > >> >>> > > Nishith, can you confirm you are taking the lead on this? >> >>> > > >> >>> > > Thanks >> >>> > > Vinoth >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >
