[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10295?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15931248#comment-15931248
]
Steve Rowe commented on SOLR-10295:
-----------------------------------
bq. Maybe the "this is for unreleased version of the Solr" is actually a bug
not a feature and public does not need to see the latest commits live.
+1.
I think there are two desirable functions here: 1) Committers should be able to
preview formatted docs ASAP after commits without having to build them for
every doc change; and 2) Release candidate voters should be able to review the
ref guide release in all its forms (PDF and HTML currently) as part of the
voting process.
For 1), Jenkins should work, I think, maybe by just adding a build step to the
Solr Artifacts Jenkins jobs, which run roughly daily?:
[https://builds.apache.org/job/Solr-Artifacts-6.x/] and
[https://builds.apache.org/job/Solr-Artifacts-master/].
Cassandra wrote RE 2):
bq. [W]e won't have a staging area to view the Guide before publication. [...]
We may want to put a process in place to give some additional confidence that
things look right first [...], and agree on what we'd be voting on when a vote
to release comes up. However, the CMS is pretty much the only option that I can
think of...other ideas are welcome if they might work.
Maybe we could leverage 1)'s output and bless a particular Jenkins Solr
Artifacts job's output (against the release branch of course) as the thing to
be voted on? Then the release process would just copy those from Jenkins to
wherever the downloadable/viewable release will live.
> Decide online location for Ref Guide HTML pages
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-10295
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10295
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Components: documentation
> Reporter: Cassandra Targett
>
> One of the biggest decisions we need to make is where to put the new Solr Ref
> Guide. Confluence at least had the whole web-hosting bits figured out; we
> have to figure that out on our own.
> An obvious (maybe only to me) choice is to integrate the Ref Guide with the
> Solr Website. However, due to the size of the Solr Ref Guide (nearly 200
> pages), I believe trying to publish it solely with existing CMS tools will
> create problems similar to those described in the Lucene ReleaseTodo when it
> comes to publishing the Lucene/Solr javadocs (see
> https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo#Website_.2B-.3D_javadocs).
> A solution exists already, and it's what is done for the javadocs. From the
> above link:
> {quote}
> The solution: skip committing javadocs to the source tree, then staging, then
> publishing, and instead commit javadocs directly to the production tree.
> Ordinarily this would be problematic, because the CMS wants to keep the
> production tree in sync with the staging tree, so anything it finds in the
> production tree that's not in the staging tree gets nuked. However, the CMS
> has a built-in mechanism to allow exceptions to the
> keep-production-in-sync-with-staging rule: extpaths.txt.
> {quote}
> This solution (for those who don't know already) is to provide a static text
> file (extpaths.txt) that includes the javadoc paths that should be presented
> in production, but which won't exist in CMS staging environments. This way,
> we can publish HTML files directly to production and they will be preserved
> when the staging-production trees are synced.
> The rest of the process would be quite similar to what is documented in the
> ReleaseTodo in sections following the link above - use SVN to update the CMS
> production site and update extpaths.txt properly. We'd do this in the
> {{solr}} section of the CMS obviously, and not the {{lucene}} section.
> A drawback to this approach is that we won't have a staging area to view the
> Guide before publication. Files would be generated and go to production
> directly. We may want to put a process in place to give some additional
> confidence that things look right first (someone's people.apache.org
> directory? a pre-pub validation script that tests...something...?), and agree
> on what we'd be voting on when a vote to release comes up. However, the CMS
> is pretty much the only option that I can think of...other ideas are welcome
> if they might work.
> We also need to agree on URL paths that make sense, considering we'll have a
> new "site" for each major release - something like
> {{http://lucene.apache.org/solr/ref-guide/6_1}} might work? Other thoughts
> are welcome on this point also.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
