And by Wiki, I mean GitHub's Wiki associated with the (source code) Repository. Between GitHub Wiki and README, README wins every time for reason previously mentioned.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:28 PM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Personally, as a engineer, I am more of a fan of the GitHub README (or > even Wiki), rather than a separate site. A lot easier for users to update > (submit a PR). > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Kirk Lund <kirk.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <jmcallis...@pivotal.io> >> wrote: >> >> > 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 >> <javascript:;>> >> > 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 incomplete and out-of-date feature branch.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 >> > <javascript:;>> >> > > 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:;> >> > > > <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:;> >> > > > <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:;> >> > > > <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:;> >> > > > <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:;> >> > > > <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:;> <javascript:;>> >> > > > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts? >> > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes < >> > > dbar...@pivotal.io <javascript:;> >> > > > <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:;> >> > > > > > > >>> <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) >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > -- > -John > 503-504-8657 > john.blum10101 (skype) > -- -John 503-504-8657 john.blum10101 (skype)
