On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:15 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> maintaining the website is pretty much a committers responsability. > it's done through SVN. There's a link somewhere in apache.org > explaining how to do it. > Except, as a committer, I have no idea how to do it. I checked some of the typical spots and couldn't find it. > > Too many changes would be something that makes the documentation too > far from the released version. Just common sense... we can exercise > our judgment here and adapt the workflow when needed. that was my > point. > > I don't think we need to be strict on this case. it was a simple > change that could have been updated on the website. Was just saying we > don't really need to change the workflow now.. but I don't see an > issue on changing it at any point. > I don't think its a good idea for us to focus on just this change. > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Antoine Toulme > <antoine.tou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Is anybody besides you aware of how to edit and push docs on the website? > > > > What is too many changes? > > > >> On Nov 14, 2016, at 8:22 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> The docs on the webiste are not necessarily part of the release.. they > >> just document how to use a current release. Some options are not > >> available in 1.4, only on 1.5... etc... > >> > >> Now, we can't change the release for sure since it's signed and voted. > >> > >> I think it's ok to make a small change to the 1.5.0 release and push > >> it directly to the webiste... I prefer doing it as part of the > >> release.. but we can treat small exceptions occasionally. > >> > >> > >> > >> What about this: If we start making too many changes to the docs (like > >> if someone is reviewing docs.. etc.. we can then upload a snapshot of > >> the docs to the website). Right now it's not really needed.. but if we > >> need it we can change the workflow at any point (when needed). WDYT? > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Antoine Toulme > >> <antoine.tou...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> At Apache Buildr we push the docs out to the website without mapping > them to a release. > >>> > >>> We also push changes on a release. > >>> > >>> We never update released bits - they're signed and voted and all. > >>> > >>>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 08:11, Martyn Taylor <mtay...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I'm not 100% I am following properly here, but a couple of points: > >>>> > >>>> The documentation API/user manual is currently shipped with the > release. > >>>> So there's no way to update this after the release is out. We do host > >>>> copies of the documentation (and some additional formats) here: > >>>> > >>>> https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs.html > >>>> > >>>> These could be updated after a release. But would mean there's a > >>>> differences between what we ship and what we host online. If we want > to > >>>> separate the documentation and the release, then perhaps we remove > the docs > >>>> from the release altogether, and point users our docs page, which we > can > >>>> update periodically? > >>>> > >>>> John, regarding your comments about pushing to docs periodically, > could you > >>>> please explain how this works? could you point to me to a project > that does > >>>> this so I can take a look? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> Martyn > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:46 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org > > > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:29 AM Clebert Suconic < > >>>>> clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm against the idea of storing the docs outside the source > repository. > >>>>>> It > >>>>>>> just makes sense for them to live together. When you're looking > at a > >>>>>>> release bundle, the docs within it should match the release you > pulled > >>>>>> down. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I don't have an issue with us hosting multiple releases worth of > docs, > >>>>>> even > >>>>>>> though at apache we only ever consider the latest release as > valid. I > >>>>>>> think it would be beneficial for us to have docs setup for the > current > >>>>>>> snapshot as well. This way we can see if users have feedback on > the > >>>>>>> current goings on. That's where I'm talking about the continuous > >>>>> aspect > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>> this. They could even go into a SNAPSHOT folder. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That would encourage snapshot usage IMO. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't understand this point. The ASF acknowledges snapshots. > There's > >>>>> nothing wrong with snapshots, as long as its clear that: > >>>>> > >>>>> - Its not an official release > >>>>> - Taking the "official release" isn't a process involving cloning the > >>>>> current master/head of the repo. > >>>>> > >>>>> Do you have concerns with using snapshots? I think its actually a > good > >>>>> practice, to make sure there's no compatibility issues for users or > >>>>> ourselves. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> As of now I will just update 1.5.0 HTML with the change you made. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Clebert Suconic > > > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic >
