Hi Dmitry,
I've added a comment to the issue.
My Confluence ID is a.budnikov. Could you please grant me permissions
required to edit pages. Thanks!
Artem
On 24.07.2018 16:58, Dmitry Pavlov wrote:
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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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>
<mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
