Ok, if all our doc writers are in the agreement then let's give a couple of days to our fellow Igniters to share alternate opinions.
Artem, if you don't hear back by Monday then feel free to create an INFRA ticket. -- Denis On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:43 AM Prachi Garg <pg...@gridgain.com> wrote: > I totally agree with Denis's point - > > "Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is that > Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a > release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete the > docs in advance." > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Yes, I agree. My concern is related only to process implementation aspect, >> I wonder if it is technically possible. >> >> Generally I like idea of automatic control. >> >> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 23:21, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: >> >> > Hi folks, >> > >> > Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets tracking less >> > error-prone. The current approach implies that a contributor keeps in >> mind >> > what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good memory, a doc JIRA >> > counterpart will be created once the contribution is accepted. But the >> > practice shows that the memory lets us down :) >> > >> > Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is >> that >> > Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a >> > release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete >> the >> > docs in advance. >> > >> > -- >> > Denis >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov < >> > a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Dmitry, >> >> >> >> The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was to rectify the >> >> fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on an ad-hoc basis, >> >> and often issues are created when the lack of documentation becomes an >> >> issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. >> >> >> >> I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as efficient as the >> >> current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will have to be shared >> >> between multiple contributors and performed outside of JIRA, which has >> >> its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for improvement without >> >> creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. >> >> >> >> If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a field, then we >> >> should contact Apache Infra and find out. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Artem Budnikov >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >> >> > Hi Artem, >> >> > >> >> > I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has potential for >> >> > improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive and simple to >> >> > understand. So if experienced tech writer will join community it >> could >> >> > benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're very welcome to >> the >> >> > community! >> >> > >> >> > About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need assistance of >> >> Apache >> >> > Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other Apache project. >> >> And >> >> > I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed process is >> even >> >> > possible without plugins. Could we consider some manual processing of >> >> > completed issues in relation to doc requrement? >> >> > >> >> > Sincerely, >> >> > Dmitriy Pavlov >> >> > >> >> > ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov < >> >> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>: >> >> > >> >> >> Hi Igniters, >> >> >> >> >> >> Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to Ignite's >> >> >> documentation, and I believe documentation is an important part of >> >> every >> >> >> product, especially such a complex product as Apache Ignite. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to increase our chances >> of >> >> >> making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The basic idea is to >> >> >> have a Jira issue with the Component field set to "Documentation" >> for >> >> >> every feature that needs to be documented. This will ensure that >> there >> >> >> are documentation issues that cover the entire product >> functionality. >> >> >> Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an article on the >> >> subject. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is how I envision it to work technically. A new field >> (checkbox) >> >> is >> >> >> added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox indicates that >> >> the >> >> >> feature requested in this issue needs to be documented. The >> checkbox is >> >> >> selected by default. If the feature does not require documentation, >> >> then >> >> >> the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require documentation, >> the >> >> >> author creates a related Jira issue selecting "Documentation" in the >> >> >> Component field, providing details on what exactly should be >> >> documented. >> >> >> >> >> >> The field is called "Requires documentation" or similarly. It could >> be >> >> >> also useful to create a new issue type for documentation issues >> >> >> exclusively. >> >> >> >> >> >> Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. issues that do not require documentation, >> >> >> 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, and >> >> >> 3. issues that require documentation but have no related issues >> >> (which >> >> >> means that the author forgot to create a documentation issue >> for >> >> it). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Please share your thoughts about this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> Artem Budnikov >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
