On 03/25/2016 08:20 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Jim Rollenhagen's message of 2016-03-25 10:45:30 -0700: >> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 09:10:05AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> > > Excerpts from Lana Brindley's message of 2016-03-24 08:50:49 +1000: >>>> > > > On 24/03/16 08:01, Doug Hellmann wrote: >>>>> > > > > Excerpts from Lana Brindley's message of 2016-03-24 07:14:35 >>>>> > > > > +1000: >>>>>> > > > >> Hi Mike, and sorry I missed you on IRC to discuss this there. >>>>>> > > > >> That said, I think it's great that you took this to the mailing >>>>>> > > > >> list, especially seeing the conversation that has ensued. >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> More inline ... >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> On 24/03/16 01:06, Mike Perez wrote: >>>>>>> > > > >>> Hey all, >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> I've been talking to a variety of projects about lack of >>>>>>> > > > >>> install guides. This >>>>>>> > > > >>> came from me not having a great experience with trying out >>>>>>> > > > >>> projects in the big >>>>>>> > > > >>> tent. >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> Projects like Manila have proposed install docs [1], but they >>>>>>> > > > >>> were rejected >>>>>>> > > > >>> by the install docs team because it's not in defcore. One of >>>>>>> > > > >>> Manila's goals of >>>>>>> > > > >>> getting these docs accepted is to apply for the operators tag >>>>>>> > > > >>> ops:docs:install-guide [2] so that it helps their maturity >>>>>>> > > > >>> level in the project >>>>>>> > > > >>> navigator [3]. >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> Adrian Otto expressed to me having the same issue for Magnum. >>>>>>> > > > >>> I think it's >>>>>>> > > > >>> funny that a project that gets keynote time at the OpenStack >>>>>>> > > > >>> conference can't >>>>>>> > > > >>> be in the install docs personally. >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> As seen from the Manila review [1], the install docs team is >>>>>>> > > > >>> suggesting these >>>>>>> > > > >>> to be put in their developer guide. >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> As Steve pointed out, these now have solid plans to go in. That >>>>>> > > > >> was because both projects opened a conversation with us and we >>>>>> > > > >> worked with them over time to give them the docs they required. >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> I don't think this is a great idea. Mainly because they are >>>>>>> > > > >>> for developers, >>>>>>> > > > >>> operators aren't going to be looking in there for install >>>>>>> > > > >>> information. Also the >>>>>>> > > > >>> Developer doc page [4] even states "This page contains >>>>>>> > > > >>> documentation for Python >>>>>>> > > > >>> developers, who work on OpenStack itself". >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> I agree, but it's a great place to start. In fact, I've just >>>>>> > > > >> merged a change to the Docs Contributor Guide (on the back of a >>>>>> > > > >> previous mailing list conversation) that explicitly states this: >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> http://docs.openstack.org/contributor-guide/quickstart/new-projects.html >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > I think you're missing that most of us are disagreeing that it is >>>>> > > > > a good place to start. It's fine to have the docs in a repository >>>>> > > > > managed by the project team. It's not good at all to publish them >>>>> > > > > under docs.o.o/developer because they are not for developers, and >>>>> > > > > so it's confusing. This is why we ended up with a different place >>>>> > > > > for release notes to be published, instead of just adding reno to >>>>> > > > > the existing developer documentation build, for example. >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > All docs need to be drafted somewhere. I don't care where that is, >>>> > > > but make the suggestion of /developer because at least it's >>>> > > > accessible there, and also because it's managed in the project's own >>>> > > > repo. If you want to create a different place, or rename /developer >>>> > > > to be more inclusive, I think that's a great idea. >>> > > >>> > > I think we'll want to add a new location, or publish to a similar >>> > > location to the existing install guide. I found, for example >>> > > http://docs.openstack.org/mitaka/install-guide-ubuntu/ >>> > > >>> > > If we take ironic as the example, and assume all OS-types would be >>> > > covered in one manual, we could make that: >>> > > >>> > > (1) http://docs.openstack.org/mitaka/ironic/install-guide/ >>> > > (2) http://docs.openstack.org/ironic/mitaka/install-guide/ >>> > > (3) http://docs.openstack.org/install-guide/ironic/ >>> > > (4) http://docs.openstack.org/ironic/install-guide/ >>> > > >>> > > I like options 3 and 4. To keep things simple for the project teams, >>> > > I think we want to skip including the release series in the base >>> > > URL. As the instructions change, projects may need to create >>> > > separate sub-sections of their guide for each series, but they >>> > > should be able to do that without having to set up separate publishing >>> > > locations and jobs. >>> > > >>> > > Another benefit of options 3 and 4 is that as the ironic team >>> > > produces other guides, those can go under a consistent URL that >>> > > makes it relatively simple to set up a generic publishing job for >>> > > all projects. Option 4 does have the benefit of making it easy to >>> > > have a page at http://docs.openstack.org/ironic/ linking to all of >>> > > the guides the ironic team has published. >>> > > >>> > > Thoughts? >> > >> > I also like 3 and 4. I like 3 because it's a similar structure to the >> > developer docs, however I do like 4 giving us the option to publish >> > other guides (and perhaps we could move the developer docs to >> > /ironic/developer). >> > >> > I do think we should be able to publish per-release versions of the >> > install guide (or any other guides) similar to how we publish developer >> > docs per-release today. For example: >> > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic/liberty/ >> > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic/5.1.0/ > Interesting, I wasn't aware of anyone doing that. Do you have custom doc > build jobs in place? I could imagine this being useful for the Oslo > libraries, too.
This is how the infra publishing script is setup. So, just picking a random oslo lib, this exists: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/oslo.config/liberty/ Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
