Hi everyone,
I've prepared the initial set of source files for the Ignite
documentation. If you are interested, you can take a look at
https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs
You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want to view the docs in
your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions. Some people had
troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction on how to
use jekyll docker image.
If you have any comments on the overall approach, please let me know.
The styles and content are still a work in progress, so please don't
report issues related to that.
-Artem
On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote:
+1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier contribution for
docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit PR for docs)
to the document page on site.
As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's products in
separate repos, for example.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov <a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
wrote:
OK, let's give it a try.
The way I see it, the documentation source files will be located in the
"/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, and build
scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you know when
basic setup is ready.
-Artem
On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote:
I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same
repository
with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the release
artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw documentation
ascii-doc
pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version needs to reside
on
the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can create tools
to do this in one click.
Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the opposite, and they
suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if committers
to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a review later
if
needed.
-
Denis
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov <
a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Pavel,
I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
separate repo,
Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be stored
in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to date.
I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been released
in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I understand
that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but it
looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think about
a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this
inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it
through.
we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
the IDE.
I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a project. I used to do
it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because it's more
convenient to me. We are looking at it from different perspectives. I'm
trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech writers rather
than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a compromise:)
Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
(probably?),
but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce
overhead?
Just think about it from my perspective. That creates a HUUUGE overhead
for technical writers who work on the docs, and they are the ones who
provide 90% of updates. I agree about the review process, and I'm going
to think it over. But now it seems that we don't have to impose any
strict process that impedes preparation of the docs.
-Artem
On 23.06.2020 15:35, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
all your pros points work just as well for a separate repository
I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
separate repo,
we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
the IDE.
I am able to freely commit to master
Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
(probably?),
but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce
overhead?
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:59 PM Artem Budnikov
<a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com <mailto:a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Pavel,
As far as I can see, all your pros points work just as well for a
separate repository (except for "everybody knows about it"). I
don't
mind keeping the docs in Ignite repo as long as I am able to
freely
commit to master. Will I be able to do that?
-Artem
On 23.06.2020 14:04, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
> Ilya, Artem,
>
> "Separate repo just because we can't finish docs before release"
> does not make sense to me. My proposal is:
>
> - Working version is in the master branch
> - When a release branch is created, e.g. ignite-2.9, we create
> ignite-2.9-docs and update it as long as we want.
>
> Pros (compared to a separate repo):
> - Docs can be updated along with the code, same review process
> - Visibility - everyone knows about main repo, docs are
searchable together
> with code in the IDE
> - Code snippets can reference the actual code and we make sure
they compile
> - Code snippets can be tested on TC
>
> GridGain uses a separate repo for their docs, and it proved to
be less than
> optimal.
> Especially when adding samples for new APIs which are not yet
released.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:19 PM Artem Budnikov
<a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com <mailto:a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Pavel,
>>
>> Yes, I mean a separate repository. The reason is that
documentation is
>> usually updated after the product version is released. As Ilya
pointed
>> out, keeping the docs in the main Ignite repository would
entail
>> completing the docs before the release date, which is not
possible under
>> current circumstances.
>>
>> Ilya,
>>
>> You can look at your company's documentation for a working
prototype
>> turned production-ready approach. The approach has been tested
for a
>> while and proved to be successful, at least with respect to our
goals here.
>>
>> -Artem
>>
>> On 23.06.2020 12:48, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> I'm not really sold on the github version yet, I would like to
see a
>>> prototype of such documentation before deciding, so for me
it'w
>>> 0
>>>
>>> Pavel, we don't have enough discipline to make sure that all
>> documentation
>>> is ready at the time of release, and we may need to add
notices here and
>>> there after a release is already out. This means, separate git
>> repository,
>>> or at least separate git tag on that repository, is needed.
>>>
>>> Regards,
