Alex, Thanks a lot for preparing the list. It's truly handy. We'll take care of all the unassigned tickets by reaching out to the contributors.
- Denis On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 4:13 AM Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > Artem, > > Ok, let's suggest edits for 2.9 release documentations via pull request to > ignite-7595 branch if there are no other objections. > > чт, 6 авг. 2020 г. в 13:20, Artem Budnikov <a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>: > > > Alex, > > > > The documentation source files are still in the IGNITE-7595 branch. I > > haven't pushed them to the master yet, but I can do so if it is > > necessary. Or, you can add your changes to this branch. I added an > > instruction on how to contribute: > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/IGNITE-7595/docs/README.adoc > > > > I suggest we do the first release of the new docs manually (just like we > > do on readme.io) to get a sense of how the process works and how to > > automate it better. Then, I'll document the entire process on our wiki. > > > > Sounds good? > > > > Artem > > > > On 06.08.2020 11:37, Alex Plehanov wrote: > > > Denis, Artem, > > > > > > I've marked the "tracing" ticket as important. > > > Also, I've added a new section to the release page [1] and created > > > documentation tickets for some features. Now there is a documentation > > > ticket exists for each important feature implemented in 2.9. > > > I know that some Igniters are currently working on documentation, but > the > > > question is still unanswered: where to push changes? To GitHub, or to > > > readme.io? Guys, can you clarify, please? > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Documentationtasksforimportantfeaturesimplementedin2.9 > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 авг. 2020 г. в 21:08, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > >> Hi Alex, > > >> > > >> Certainly, the new documentation should not be treated as a > showstopper, > > >> and if the code is ready much earlier, then we can release the docs on > > >> readme.io. > > >> > > >> But, it's not clear what's the documentation readiness status. As per > > our > > >> updated release process, the docs need to be ready before the voting > is > > >> started [1]. That change was discussed and introduced after our > > >> lessons-learned conversations related to the 2.8 release. > > >> > > >> Could you please help to figure out the status by preparing a list of > > >> documentation tasks that must be completed before the voting time (all > > >> significant features and changes)? The "most important tasks" section > > [2] > > >> already lists most of them, but the list might be incomplete. For > > example, > > >> the tracing feature should be added in 2.9, but it's not in the > > important > > >> tasks list. There might be something else profound that we should put > on > > >> paper. > > >> > > >> Once we get the list, we can start working with the contributors in > > charge > > >> to get things done. If some documentation pages won't be finished in 2 > > >> weeks from now, then it's reasonable to contribute the 2.9 docs to the > > new > > >> docs repository that will be ready for the release in 3-4 weeks. Just > my > > >> thinking. > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.1EnsureDocumentationReadinessandAccouncementBlogPostActivity > > >> [2] > > >> > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Themostimportantreleasetasks > > >> > > >> - > > >> Denis > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:54 AM Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Denis, > > >>> > > >>> We have some performance drop on benchmarks, so we need some time to > > find > > >>> problematic commit and analyze it. I hope this will be completed > during > > >> the > > >>> current week and we move to the "Vote preparation" phase to the start > > of > > >>> next week. > > >>> I think waiting for another month due to documentation it's too much. > > >>> Do we have an option to release with documentation on readme.io and > > then > > >>> move documentation in the new format during next month? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> пн, 3 авг. 2020 г. в 17:55, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > >>> > > >>>> I would wait for 3-4 weeks and release the new docs in 2.9. It means > > >> that > > >>>> the release should be announced the first week of September which is > > >> not > > >>> a > > >>>> huge slip. Moreover, it feels like the testing phase and release > > >>> procedures > > >>>> will not be completed sooner. > > >>>> > > >>>> So, I would suggest contributing 2.9 related page to the new > > >>> documentation > > >>>> repository. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Denis > > >>>> > > >>>> On Monday, August 3, 2020, Artem Budnikov < > > a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> 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.ignite@gmai > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> l.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, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> - > > >>>> Denis > > >>>> > > >
