The docs build process creates HTML output that we can drop into geode-website. +William Markito <wmark...@pivotal.io> and I were able to make this work locally. I'm drafting an updated README that includes how to add docs to the existing website infrastructure.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 2:25 PM Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > For the docs, do we plan on delaying the release until the docs are > part of the source distribution, or until they can actually be hosted > on geode.apache.org? From what I understand the docs build requires a > ruby webserver to host the site, so there might some effort to try to > get the docs actually hosted on the website? > > +1 for getting the docs in the source distro at least. > > -Dan > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Joey McAllister <jmcallis...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > +1 to including docs > > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:48 PM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > >> +1 for including docs in the release > >> > >> Anthony > >> > >> > On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > This sounds like feature creep, but based on this thread: > >> > http://markmail.org/message/fwfslt2s7yl7mqm4 do we want to target > >> GEODE-1952 > >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-1952> for 1.0? > >> > > >> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar < > sbawas...@pivotal.io> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Thanks for the offer Anthony, > >> >> I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the > 1.0 > >> >> tag from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now > be > >> >> accurate. > >> >> > >> >> I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on > commit > >> >> abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please > >> make > >> >> sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If > you > >> are > >> >> using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for > >> switching > >> >> to the new branch. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Thanks! > >> >> > >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D > >> >> %20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%20AND% > >> >> 20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C% > >> >> 20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito < > wmark...@pivotal.io> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> +1 > >> >>> > >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> > >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> +1 > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner > (now?) > >> >>> so > >> >>>> we > >> >>>>>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and > destabilizing > >> >>> it. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> -Kirk > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker < > aba...@pivotal.io> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to > >> isolate > >> >>>> the > >> >>>>>>> release branch from ongoing development. For past releases we > have > >> >>>>>> waited > >> >>>>>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead. > >> Perhaps > >> >>>> this > >> >>>>>>> time we should create the branch earlier. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some > deltas > >> >>>>>>> compared to the last release scope email [2]. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for > >> >>> 1.0.0 > >> >>>> but > >> >>>>>>> the Fix Version is not set > >> >>>>>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but > Fix > >> >>>>>> Version > >> >>>>>>> is set to 1.0.0 > >> >>>>>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for > >> >>> 1.0.0? > >> >>>>>>> If so, I can update the bugs. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Anthony > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > >> >>>>>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating% > >> >>>>>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY% > >> >>>>>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode- > >> >>>>>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_ > >> >>>> LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@ > >> >>>>>>> mail.gmail.com%3e > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org > >> >>>>>> <javascript:;>> > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of > Geode > >> >>> 1.0? > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that > >> allows > >> >>>>>> folks > >> >>>>>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without > >> >>>>>>> destabilizing > >> >>>>>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 > >> >>> would go > >> >>>>>> to > >> >>>>>>>> the 1.0 branch? > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> -Kirk > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> > >> >>> ~/William > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >
