Guys, What about documentation for 2.9 release? Are we going to publish it on readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org? What about new edits? Should we still edit pages on readme.io or already make changes in git repository? Artem, could you please clarify the current documentation workflow?
пн, 20 июл. 2020 г. в 16:42, Artem Budnikov <a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>: > Denis, > > > How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the > website > > repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step? > > Yes, I'll look into this this week. This shouldn't be very difficult. > > -Artem > > On 18.07.2020 00:43, Denis Magda wrote: > > Worked out well on my end. Thanks for sending the update! > > > > How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the > website > > repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step? > > > > - > > Denis > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:27 AM Artem Budnikov < > a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> I've prepared the initial set of source files for the Ignite > >> documentation. If you are interested, you can take a look at > >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs > >> > >> You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want to view the docs in > >> your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions. Some people had > >> troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction on how to > >> use jekyll docker image. > >> > >> If you have any comments on the overall approach, please let me know. > >> The styles and content are still a work in progress, so please don't > >> report issues related to that. > >> > >> -Artem > >> > >> On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote: > >>> +1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier contribution > for > >>> docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit PR for > >> docs) > >>> to the document page on site. > >>> > >>> As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's products > in > >>> separate repos, for example. > >>> > >>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov < > >> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> OK, let's give it a try. > >>>> > >>>> The way I see it, the documentation source files will be located in > the > >>>> "/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, and > build > >>>> scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you know when > >>>> basic setup is ready. > >>>> > >>>> -Artem > >>>> > >>>> On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote: > >>>>> I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same > >>>> repository > >>>>> with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the > >> release > >>>>> artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw documentation > >>>> ascii-doc > >>>>> pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version needs to > >> reside > >>>> on > >>>>> the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can create > >> tools > >>>>> to do this in one click. > >>>>> > >>>>> Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the opposite, and > they > >>>>> suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if > >> committers > >>>>> to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a review > later > >>>> if > >>>>> needed. > >>>>> > >>>>> - > >>>>> Denis > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov < > >>>> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Pavel, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a > >>>>>>> separate repo, > >>>>>> Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be > >> stored > >>>>>> in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to > >> date. > >>>>>> I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been > >> released > >>>>>> in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I > understand > >>>>>> that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but > it > >>>>>> looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think > >> about > >>>>>> a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this > >>>>>> inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it > >>>>>> through. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) > from > >>>>>>> the IDE. > >>>>>> I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a project. I used > to > >> do > >>>>>> it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because it's > >> more > >>>>>> convenient to me. We are looking at it from different perspectives. > >> I'm > >>>>>> trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech writers > rather > >>>>>> than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a > >> compromise:) > >>>>>>>> Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, > there > >>>>>>>> is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc. > >>>>>>>> Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not. > >>>>>>>> But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management > >>>>>>>> (probably?), > >>>>>>>> but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce > >>>> overhead? > >>>>>> Just think about it from my perspective. That creates a HUUUGE > >> overhead > >>>>>> for technical writers who work on the docs, and they are the ones > who > >>>>>> provide 90% of updates. I agree about the review process, and I'm > >> going > >>>>>> to think it over. But now it seems that we don't have to impose any > >>>>>> strict process that impedes preparation of the docs. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Artem > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 23.06.2020 15:35, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > >>>>>>>> all your pros points work just as well for a separate repository > >>>>>>> I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a > >>>>>>> separate repo, > >>>>>>> we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) > from > >>>>>>> the IDE. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I am able to freely commit to master > >>>>>>> Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, > there > >>>>>>> is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc. > >>>>>>> Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not. > >>>>>>> But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management > >>>>>>> (probably?), > >>>>>>> but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce > >>>> overhead? > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:59 PM Artem Budnikov > >>>>>>> <a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com <mailto:a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Pavel, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As far as I can see, all your pros points work just as well > >> for a > >>>>>>> separate repository (except for "everybody knows about > it"). I > >>>> don't > >>>>>>> mind keeping the docs in Ignite repo as long as I am able to > >>>> freely > >>>>>>> commit to master. Will I be able to do that? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Artem > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 23.06.2020 14:04, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > >>>>>>> > Ilya, Artem, > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > "Separate repo just because we can't finish docs before > >> release" > >>>>>>> > does not make sense to me. My proposal is: > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > - Working version is in the master branch > >>>>>>> > - When a release branch is created, e.g. ignite-2.9, we > >> create > >>>>>>> > ignite-2.9-docs and update it as long as we want. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Pros (compared to a separate repo): > >>>>>>> > - Docs can be updated along with the code, same review > >> process > >>>>>>> > - Visibility - everyone knows about main repo, docs are > >>>>>>> searchable together > >>>>>>> > with code in the IDE > >>>>>>> > - Code snippets can reference the actual code and we make > >> sure > >>>>>>> they compile > >>>>>>> > - Code snippets can be tested on TC > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > GridGain uses a separate repo for their docs, and it > proved > >> to > >>>>>>> be less than > >>>>>>> > optimal. > >>>>>>> > Especially when adding samples for new APIs which are not > yet > >>>>>>> released. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:19 PM Artem Budnikov > >>>>>>> <a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com <mailto: > >> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com > >>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> >> Pavel, > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> Yes, I mean a separate repository. The reason is that > >>>>>>> documentation is > >>>>>>> >> usually updated after the product version is released. As > >> Ilya > >>>>>>> pointed > >>>>>>> >> out, keeping the docs in the main Ignite repository would > >>>> entail > >>>>>>> >> completing the docs before the release date, which is not > >>>>>>> possible under > >>>>>>> >> current circumstances. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> Ilya, > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> You can look at your company's documentation for a > working > >>>>>>> prototype > >>>>>>> >> turned production-ready approach. The approach has been > >> tested > >>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>> >> while and proved to be successful, at least with respect > to > >> our > >>>>>>> goals here. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> -Artem > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> On 23.06.2020 12:48, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: > >>>>>>> >>> Hello! > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> I'm not really sold on the github version yet, I would > >> like to > >>>>>>> see a > >>>>>>> >>> prototype of such documentation before deciding, so for > me > >>>> it'w > >>>>>>> >>> 0 > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> Pavel, we don't have enough discipline to make sure that > >> all > >>>>>>> >> documentation > >>>>>>> >>> is ready at the time of release, and we may need to add > >>>>>>> notices here and > >>>>>>> >>> there after a release is already out. This means, > separate > >> git > >>>>>>> >> repository, > >>>>>>> >>> or at least separate git tag on that repository, is > needed. > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> Regards, > >>>>>>> >
