Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :) On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote:
> The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding +1, 3 > non-binding +1 and no -1. > > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking for a > volunteer? > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> +1 on same repo. >> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro < >> edward.ribe...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :) >> > >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <n...@confluent.io> >> wrote: >> > >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in >> sync. >> > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more >> accurate >> > > they >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same. >> > > > >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur without >> a >> > new >> > > > release? >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of code >> / >> > doc >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well. >> > > > > >> > > > > Guozhang >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples documentation >> > > changes >> > > > > from >> > > > > > website changes: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the >> > documentation >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the >> > > > > documentation, >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike current SVN >> > > where >> > > > we >> > > > > > have directories per version) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new release >> to >> > > the >> > > > > > website >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Gwen >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk >> > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving the >> > > website >> > > > to >> > > > > > > Git: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like to >> > see a >> > > > bit >> > > > > > of >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part of the >> > same >> > > > repo >> > > > > > as >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo: >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which means: >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant code >> > changes >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same time >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo: >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller repo, >> > less >> > > > > > > verification needed) >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best, >> > > > > > > Ismael >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal < >> > > asmbans...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git >> > came >> > > > up. >> > > > > > > That >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have >> contributed >> > > to >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github >> > could >> > > > be >> > > > > > > > useful. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a >> > > > separate >> > > > > > > repo. >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I can try that out. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > -- Guozhang >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Grant Henke >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera >> > > > gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Thanks, >> > > Neha >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> Ashish >> > >
