Hi Gwen, I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the move so I pinged him in the issue.
Best, Ismael On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :) > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding +1, > 3 > > non-binding +1 and no -1. > > > > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking for a > > volunteer? > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > >> +1 on same repo. > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro < > >> edward.ribe...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :) > >> > > >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <n...@confluent.io> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > +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 > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Regards, > >> Ashish > >> > > > > >
