On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We could try with the next BP > Maybe we'd better do the the migration of existing docs only after seeing > that the approach is feasible. > My major concern is about non-committers why non-committers is a concern? Non-committers can still create a github issue and send PR, no? Current BP process requires people to create ASF wiki account and also committers to grant wiki edit permissions. It requires more steps for people to propose BP. > . > Anyway who proposes a BP will likely be the lead for the implementation, if > he is not a committer he would be somehow skilled and can manage to > integrate with the flow > > -- Enrico > > 2017-11-22 10:30 GMT+01:00 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi all, > > > > I have been thinking of how to improve documentation process for a while. > > We have a good BP process for introducing enhancements, features. > However, > > this process is not well integrated with our review process, and the > > content of a BP is not used for documentation. > > > > I am proposing moving the BPs from wiki to github for a couple of > reasons: > > > > - the ASF cwiki is disconnected from Github, and usually becomes out of > > date quickly. It doesn't really catch up with the code changes. Most of > the > > content (documentation, contribution/release guides) are already in > > website, cwiki is only used for tracking BPs and community meeting notes > at > > this point. > > - Moving BPs to github will leverage the same github review process. So > > people are easier to review and comment on BPs. > > - The BPs can be finalized and used for documentation. > > > > Here is the rough idea: > > > > - BPs are maintained under `site/bps` directory. > > - If a developer is making a BP, he can create an issue and send a pull > > request for the BP. > > - Once the BP is reviewed and accepted, it will be merged and listed as > > `Accepted`. > > - The original BP issue will be left open during its development. Once > the > > BP is fully implemented and merge, we update the BP as done when closing > > the BP issue. (This probably can be automated with github webhooks). > > > > If we put BPs in `site/bps` directory, the BP will be available on > website > > once it is merged. so the BP can be also updated along with code change, > > and make the implementation and documentation in sync. > > > > Also, If we can make BP process work on Github, we can deprecate using > the > > ASF wiki, make it a pure github workflow. > > > > I would like to hear your opinions about that. > > > > - Sijie > > >
