Hi Maxim,
The new docs project is not finished yet. There are still a lot of pages
to port to the new format, and we are still working on the integration
with the web-site. Nevertheless, we can try to publish the Ignite 2.9
documentation on the web-site in the new format. The documentation will
not be 100% complete, but it will be updated significantly and will
contain most of the information our users need. Actually, I would like
to do that, but it all depends on how much time I have before Ignite 2.9
is released. I'd say 2-3 weeks would be enough for me to finish all
tasks that are critical for the publication.
If we can wait with release 2.9 that much time, then I'll prepare the
instruction on how to contribute to the docs.
What do you think?
-Artem
On 03.08.2020 12:24, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
Artem,
I'd like to submit some documentation changes for 2.9 release. Should
I update docs on readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:06, Artem Budnikov
<a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Alex,
Sorry, I missed this message. There is still a lot of work on the docs.
When is version 2.9 going to be released?
-Artem
On 22.07.2020 10:35, Alex Plehanov wrote:
Guys,
What about documentation for 2.9 release? Are we going to publish it on
readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
What about new edits? Should we still edit pages on readme.io or already
make changes in git repository?
Artem, could you please clarify the current documentation workflow?
пн, 20 июл. 2020 г. в 16:42, Artem Budnikov <a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>:
Denis,
How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the
website
repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?
Yes, I'll look into this this week. This shouldn't be very difficult.
-Artem
On 18.07.2020 00:43, Denis Magda wrote:
Worked out well on my end. Thanks for sending the update!
How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the
website
repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?
-
Denis
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:27 AM Artem Budnikov <
a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
wrote:
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,
