I've noticed now INFRA asks for feedback from us. Artem, will you provide feedback on done change in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16803
вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:01, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>: > Hi Artem, > > This is page in Ignite space, so you could do updates. Of course, if you > have access to Ignite space in wiki. If not, please sign up and share your > wiki login (id). > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 10:25, Artem Budnikov <a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Despite what I've been told about INFRA, it responded exceptionally >> quickly and added the field :-) >> >> I think the page describing the process of creating IGNITE issues >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-TicketCreation> >> needs to be updated to reflect the changes related to documentation >> process. Could someone do this? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Artem >> On 23.07.2018 18:00, Artem Budnikov wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> I created an issue in the Apache INFRA project: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16803 >> >> Cheers, >> >> Artem >> >> >> On 19.07.2018 22:58, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >> >> I appologize, initially I misundersood proposal. I've concluded that new >> doc issue will be created automatically by closing original ticket, - >> this >> can be done by plugin only. >> >> If we just introduce flag or combobox for indicate doc is required, there >> is no technical issues, it is defenetely possible. So +1 from my side >> without concerns. >> >> чт, 19 июл. 2018 г. в 22:02, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> >> <dma...@apache.org>: >> >> 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> >> <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> >> <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> >> <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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
