Truthfully, I don't think this is any different than API features that have
been annotated with "@Experimental" (e.g. LucenceService
<http://geode.incubator.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneService.html>).
I.e. nothing is going to stop a user from trying to use a
feature/function/tool and searching for relevant information on how to use
it if they know it exists, either explicitly or implicitly.

In fact, I would think it is advantageous if they know it does exist, even
prior to an official release, so that feedback can be gathered.

If it is not to be part of the "official" User Guide, perhaps a Wiki page
(other than the specification
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode>
[1])
or better yet, a GitHub README page along with the source code if users are
given access to build and use the tool themselves.

If part of the "official" User Guide (under tools), then perhaps a
"Experimental" label.

Food for thought.

-John


[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode


On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is included in the
> source and binary release distributions will only confuse users.  +1 for
> removing.
>
> Anthony
>
> > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <dbar...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
> > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html.
> > Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode 1.0 docs.
> Right
> >> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the docs should
> >> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
> >>
> >> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future features or
> features
> >> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that would probably
> be
> >> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kirk
> >>
> >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
> jmcallis...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <dbar...@pivotal.io
> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The current
> >> writeup
> >>> is
> >>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that it's not
> >> fully
> >>>> baked and we don't support it".
> >>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io
> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at this point,
> >>>> because
> >>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0 release more
> >>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I think the
> >>>> should
> >>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make it easier
> >> for
> >>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Dan
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>


-- 
-John
503-504-8657
john.blum10101 (skype)

Reply via email to