So I think we have two different approaches here. The original proposal from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo, and hence have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have accumulated enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move website into the same repo under a different folder. If people feel they prefer this over the previous approach I would like to call for another round of voting.
Guozhang On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <paliwalash...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in Flume. > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move changes to > svn to update website. > The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes to website > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :) > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked on is: > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest revision of the > docs > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest state of code) > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification, you modify all > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and committed together > > (ideally) > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release and commit to > SVN > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in earlier docs. > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs > > > > Nice to have: > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML. Asciidoc is easier > to > > edit and review. > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka. > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an additional step > that > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo. > >> > >> Ismael > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and website in the > >> same > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175 > >> > > >> > Best, > >> > Ismael > >> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Gwen, > >> >> > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the > >> move > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue. > >> >> > >> >> Best, > >> >> Ismael > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> 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 > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > -- > thanks > ashish > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal > -- -- Guozhang
