|
On 07/08/2015 07:07 PM, Raghavendra
Talur wrote:
Top posting with summary of mails above to enable better
discussion
My suggestions:
- Differentiate between user doc(installation, administration,
feature summary, tools, FAQ/troubleshooting etc) and developer
doc(Design doc, developer workflow, coding guidelines etc).
- User documentation goes to glusterdocs repo and developer
documentation stays in gluster repo.
- An user/admin who installed through packages can do a
man(and find man pages) or google(and find readthedocs pages)
without going through gerrit/wiki etc.
- A developer who has cloned gluster repo finds all the
development related info in the repo itself(git grep etc) and
does not need to go out of the code base.
- A patch which changes a struct member should change the
relevant developer documentation in the same patch set.
- A patch which changes a user facing behavior should be
ideally followed by a PR on glusterdocs repo. (patch owner and
feature maintainer to ensure that).
- Use github's PR for glusterfsdocs and hence use the comments
system on github for that.
- A developer doc change or a new feature proposal should be
as patch on gluster repo and we can use gerrit's inline
comments for discussion on that.
On 06/23/2015 04:36 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Shravan Chandrashekar
<schandra@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We would like to finalize on the documentation contribution workflow by 26th June 2015.
As we have not yet received any comments/suggestion, we will confirm the recommend workflow after 26th June.
Kindly provide your suggestion on how we can improve this workflow.
There are a couple of aspects which need to be quickly looked through.
(a) a write-up of somewhat detail providing an overview of the new
workflow; how contributors can participate; reviewing mechanism for
patches against documentation; merge and release paths/cadence
(b) at <http://review.gluster.org/#/c/11129/> Niels has a comment
about "about design of structures used in the code" and how he thinks
that it is appropriate if "it stays part of the sources and does not
move out."
He also says "For example, I would like to document some of the memory
layout structures and functions, but this documentation will include
source-code comments and a .txt or .md file with additional details.
Spitting that makes it more difficult to keep in sync."
In this particular example, I'd probably say that it would be better
that such documentation is also part of the docs repo. It lends itself
to re-use as and when required (this particular example seems re-use
friendly).
I'd request that this switch-over to the new workflow and repositories
go ahead with the absolute "documentation" content. Examples/cases
like the above mentioned by Niels can be resolved via discussion and
probably not block the switch.
Currently, mediawiki is read-only. We have ported most of the documents from mediawiki to the new repository [1].
If you find any document which is not ported, feel free to raise this by opening an issue in [2] or if you would
like to port your documents, send a pull request.
[1] https://github.com/gluster/glusterdocs
[2] https://github.com/gluster/glusterdocs/issues
|
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
