My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the number of tools we need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the generated site, we can use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can watch for changes on GitHub, etc.
Ismael On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in> wrote: > Hi All, > > Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed further. > > 1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo > 2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs > > kumar > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in> > wrote: > > > Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us to fix > > occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR. > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round of voting. > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > wrote: > >> > >> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so I'm not > >> sure a > >> > new vote is required. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > So I think we have two different approaches here. The original > >> proposal > >> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo, and > >> hence > >> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have > >> accumulated > >> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move website > into > >> > the > >> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel they prefer this > >> over > >> > > the previous approach I would like to call for another round of > >> voting. > >> > > > >> > > Guozhang > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <paliwalash...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in Flume. > >> > > > > >> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move changes > >> to > >> > > > svn to update website. > >> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes to > >> website > >> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :) > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked on > is: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest revision > of > >> the > >> > > > docs > >> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest state > of > >> > code) > >> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification, you > >> modify > >> > > all > >> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and committed > >> > > together > >> > > > > (ideally) > >> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release and > >> commit > >> > to > >> > > > SVN > >> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in earlier > docs. > >> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Nice to have: > >> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML. Asciidoc is > >> > easier > >> > > > to > >> > > > > edit and review. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an additional > >> step > >> > > > that > >> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> Ismael > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma < > ism...@juma.me.uk> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and > website > >> in > >> > > the > >> > > > >> same > >> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra: > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175 > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Best, > >> > > > >> > Ismael > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma < > >> ism...@juma.me.uk> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> >> 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 > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >> > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > thanks > >> > > > ashish > >> > > > > >> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog > >> > > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > -- Guozhang > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -- Guozhang > >> > > > > >
