If it isn't on develop or planned for release, then I vote for removing it
from the user guide altogether. I like the recommendation to keep this and
similar (non-develop branch) information on the wiki, so the community can
still easily access it.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:51 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:

> JVSD isn't labeled as Experimental because it isn't even on develop or in
> part of any Geode release candidate. As far as I know, it exists only on an
> incomplete and out-of-date feature branch. Hence, my vote is to remove any
> mention of it from the docs until it merges to develop or at a minimum gets
> updated (rebased) from develop (or M3).
>
> Has anyone done any rebasing or other work on the JVSD branch that I'm not
> aware of?
>
> -Kirk
>
> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > I would vote for including it as an "experimental" feature.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dave Barnes <dbar...@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > Process for handling Experimental docs is still being hammered out.
> > Common
> > > element among working scenarios is isolation from the body of the User
> > > Guide proper, so I'll remove the JVSD component from the User Guide's
> > Tools
> > > and Modules section.
> > > Could go on the Wiki, could go in an appendix. We'll see what emerges.
> > > Any favorites among the readers of this thread?
> > > Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > 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
> > <javascript:;>> 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
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > 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 <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <
> dbar...@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > > >>> <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:;>
> > > > > >>> <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