Initial PR for the layout: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2387

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 03:15 Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 :-)
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > +1, thanks :-)
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > If there are no objections, I would like to work on this in the next
>> > > days. I would like to only do the restructuring and don't add any new
>> > > content (e.g. we would have a few empty pages in the beginning).
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > > I added to the "Application Development" Docs the Section "Types,
>> > > > TypeInformation, Serialization".
>> > > > I think that is an important enough aspect to warrant separate docs.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> +1 for the FLIP and making streaming the common case. Very good
>> > proposal
>> > > >> :-)
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>> > aljos...@apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > +1 I like it a lot!
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > My take would be to take streaming as the common case and make
>> > > special
>> > > >> > > sections for batch.
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > We can still have a few streaming-only sections (end to end
>> > exactly
>> > > >> once)
>> > > >> > > and a few batch-only sections (optimizer).
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > > I very much like this proposal. This is long overdue. Our
>> > > >> > > > documentation never "broke up" with the old batch focus.
>> That's
>> > > where
>> > > >> > > > the current structure comes from and why people often don't
>> find
>> > > what
>> > > >> > > > they are looking for. We were trying to treat streaming and
>> > batch
>> > > as
>> > > >> > > > equals. We never were "brave" enough to move streaming-only
>> > > concepts
>> > > >> > > > to the top-level. I really like that you are proposing this
>> now
>> > > (for
>> > > >> > > > example for Event time, State Backends etc.). I would love to
>> > have
>> > > >> > > > this go hand in hand with the 1.2 release.
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > What is your opinion about pages affecting both streaming and
>> > > batch
>> > > >> > > > like "Connectors" or "Failure model"? We could have the
>> landing
>> > > page
>> > > >> > > > cover the general material (e.g. restart strategies) and then
>> > have
>> > > >> > > > sub-pages for streaming- and batch-specific stuff. Or we treat
>> > > >> > > > streaming as the common case and have a sub-section for batch.
>> > We
>> > > >> > > > probably have to decide this case-by-case, but to me it feels
>> > like
>> > > >> > > > this was the main problem with the old documentation structure
>> > > >> > > > (content is a different story of course ;)).
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Stephan Ewen <
>> se...@apache.org
>> > >
>> > > >> > wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > Hi all!
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > I posted another FLIP - this time about a suggestion to make
>> > the
>> > > >> > > > > documentation more accessible.
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-3+-+Organization+of+Documentation
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > The issue of accessibility of information came up repeatedly
>> > > from
>> > > >> > > users I
>> > > >> > > > > talked to, so this is a suggestion how to improve this.
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > Greetings,
>> > > >> > > > > Stephan
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>

Reply via email to