Re: Documenting Ignite

[Dmitry Pavlov]

Hi Artem,

Could you please check if you can edit now.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 14:03, Artem Budnikov :

> 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 :
>
>> 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 > >:
>>
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 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 
>>> :
>>>
>>> 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 
>>>  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 
>>> 
>>> 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 
>>> :
>>>
>>> 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 cou

Re: Documenting Ignite

[Artem Budnikov]

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 >:


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
mailto: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


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 
:


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
  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
 
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
 :


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

Re: Documenting Ignite

[Dmitry Pavlov]

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 :

> 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 :
>
>> 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
>> 
>> 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 
>> :
>>
>> 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 
>>  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 
>> 
>> 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 
>> :
>>
>> 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 Bud

Re: Documenting Ignite

[Dmitry Pavlov]

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 :

> 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
> 
> 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 
> :
>
> 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 
>  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 
> 
> 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 
> :
>
> 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 b

Re: Documenting Ignite

[Artem Budnikov]

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 
 
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 :

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  
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 
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 :


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 b

Re: Documenting Ignite

[Artem Budnikov]

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 :


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  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 
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 :


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 a

Re: Documenting Ignite

[Dmitry Pavlov]

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 :

> 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  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 
> > 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 :
> >>
> >> > 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
> >> >> 

Re: Documenting Ignite

[Denis Magda]

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  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 
> 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 :
>>
>> > 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 do

Re: Documenting Ignite

[Prachi Garg]

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 
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 :
>
> > 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).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >

Re: Documenting Ignite

[Dmitry Pavlov]

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 :

> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>

Re: Documenting Ignite

[Denis Magda]

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 
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  >:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: Documenting Ignite

[Artem Budnikov]

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 :


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

Re: Documenting Ignite

[Dmitry Pavlov]

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 :

> 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
>
>

Documenting Ignite

[Artem Budnikov]

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