Hi Artem, Could you please check if you can edit now.
Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 14:03, Artem Budnikov <a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>: > 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>: > >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >
