+1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in sync. On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more accurate they > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same. > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur without a new > release? > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of code / doc > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well. > > > > Guozhang > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits. > > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples documentation changes > > from > > > website changes: > > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the documentation > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the > > documentation, > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike current SVN where > we > > > have directories per version) > > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF > > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new release to the > > > website > > > > > > Gwen > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving the website > to > > > > Git: > > > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92 > > > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like to see a > bit > > > of > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part of the same > repo > > > as > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling. > > > > > > > > Pros for same repo: > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which means: > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant code changes > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same time > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code > > > > > > > > Pros for separate repo: > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller repo, less > > > > verification needed) > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code > > > > > > > > Your thoughts, please. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <asmbans...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git came > up. > > > > That > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have contributed to > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github could > be > > > > > useful. > > > > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a > separate > > > > repo. > > > > > No need to mix docs and code. > > > > > > > > > > I can try that out. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > -- > Grant Henke > Software Engineer | Cloudera > gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke > -- Thanks, Neha
