Published the 3.2.2-SNAPSHOT docs: http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.2.2-SNAPSHOT/reference/
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote: > ah - gotcha. yes - we bind the documentation to a release. typically we > wouldn't go back and update the published documentation for 3.2.2 so any > doc changes after 3.2.2 would be part of 3.2.3. I guess there are few > caveats: > > 1. We do publish SNAPSHOT docs routinely: http://tinkerpop. > apache.org/docs/3.1.4-SNAPSHOT/reference/ - i had trouble with the > 3.2.3-SNAPSHOT the last time i tried to publish it so it's not up there > apparently. The "future" release docs are usually published right after we > officially do a releaase. My problem with 3.2.3-SNAPSHOT is resolved now so > I probably should publish. We also do a final publish of SNAPSHOT right > before release so those should in theory they should be the same as what we > ultimately release. Anyway, you can always reference those docs as needed - > we don't delete the old SNAPSHOT docs after release. > > 2. There have been a couple of occasions where we have "fixed" something > bad in release documents after release. If there was something really > messed up that was sending people down a really bad track, I suppose we > might try to get it cleaned up. > > 3. We have referenced SNAPSHOT docs from the main web site. For example, > it happens when we write a tutorial that is generally pertinent to the > current release and we don't want to wait for release to get it in front of > the eyes of users. > > HTH, > > Stephen > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Robert Dale <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Main website issue fixed and live: >> - TINKERPOP-1398 >> >> Master branch committed but pending publish: >> - https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/362 >> - TINKERPOP-1394 >> - TINKERPOP-1396 >> >> I imagine that things like the download page are instantaneously live from >> the main website filesystem. Some of the other generated content from the >> git repo requires extra process to be published. Will the generated >> content from the git repo always be dependent on the release process? So >> for the latest fixes pending publish, they won't be published until 3.2.2 >> is released. >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > I'm sorry, i'm not sure I follow what you're asking. Could you please >> > clarify? >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Robert Dale <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Stephen, will the document-driven portion (i.e. master branch >> asciidocs, >> > > e.g. recipes) of the website always depend on the release process? >> > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Dylan Millikin < >> > [email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Yeah I think we can be incremental about this. >> > > > >> > > > - add the site to /site as is. This way even if it's a pain people >> can >> > > > contribute >> > > > - make a publish-site.sh >> > > > - add some form of template system (probably to publish-site.sh) >> > > > - finalize with documentation? < or add it as we go >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Stephen Mallette < >> > [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > There's not a lot of pages - true - though when i wear the release >> > > > manager >> > > > > hat i have grumble every time i have to go through all the links >> > trying >> > > > to >> > > > > get it right. invariably i make a change, then copy/paste to the >> > others >> > > > > only to find i misspelled something or missed a link. it just >> sucks. >> > > > That >> > > > > said, i'm open to the idea of moving the site as-is to the git >> repo >> > > > under a >> > > > > /site directory. that would be the first step to doing the static >> > site >> > > > > generation anyway. >> > > > > >> > > > > if it doesn't hinge on static site generation, then perhaps it >> should >> > > > hinge >> > > > > on a little script or something that will bin/publish-site.sh - >> that >> > > > would >> > > > > be nice. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Robert Dale <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Stephen, please correct me where I'm wrong, but after mirroring >> the >> > > > > > site and removing docs and javadocs since these are generated, >> it >> > > > > > would appear that there are only 7 html files to the website. >> It's >> > > not >> > > > > > clear to me that at this point the effort of creating or moving >> to >> > a >> > > > > > template engine is worth the effort. I would rather see the >> static >> > > > > > site as-is move to version control sooner rather than later and >> not >> > > > > > hinge upon generation. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Dylan Millikin < >> > > > [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > The groovy template engine could work just fine. >> > > > > > > FYI : >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3793880/lightweight- >> > > > > template-engine-in-java >> > > > > > > There might be a few interested template engines there as >> well. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Stephen Mallette < >> > > > [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Yeah - i'm not so good with the sed to the awk to the grep or >> > > > whatever >> > > > > > so >> > > > > > >> if it can be that simple that would be awesome. The groovy >> > > template >> > > > > > engine >> > > > > > >> might be another option. Something like that would work easy >> > > enough >> > > > > too >> > > > > > I >> > > > > > >> would guess. I really don't think we need much more than that >> > > right >> > > > > now. >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Organizationally, I think we should have a /site directory at >> > the >> > > > root >> > > > > > of >> > > > > > >> the repo to house the images/html template content and then >> have >> > > it >> > > > > > >> generate into root /target/site from bin/generate-site.sh. >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Dylan Millikin < >> > > > > > [email protected]> >> > > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > Hmm sounds like what we would want would be a template >> engine >> > > that >> > > > > > would >> > > > > > >> > help us build the static site. >> > > > > > >> > If all we need are includes that put together html partials >> > > > > > >> > (headers/footers) we could make our own. It could be as >> simple >> > > as >> > > > > > using >> > > > > > >> sed >> > > > > > >> > in bin/generate-web-site.sh >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Stephen Mallette < >> > > > > > [email protected]> >> > > > > > >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > yes - static html/css and it sucks a bit because we don't >> > have >> > > > any >> > > > > > >> re-use >> > > > > > >> > > going on there. so if we have to change a menu or >> something >> > it >> > > > > means >> > > > > > >> > > changing it on every page in the site. would be nice to >> have >> > > > some >> > > > > > >> > re-usable >> > > > > > >> > > headers/footers and such. i looked into some static site >> > > > > generators >> > > > > > a >> > > > > > >> > while >> > > > > > >> > > back, but they all seemed like they did too much. maybe i >> > > didn't >> > > > > > know >> > > > > > >> > what >> > > > > > >> > > to look for. >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Dylan Millikin < >> > > > > > >> [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > How is the current site structured? Is it just HTML and >> > CSS >> > > > > files? >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Stephen Mallette < >> > > > > > >> [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > no - we don't have one for the main web site. i've >> > wanted >> > > to >> > > > > > >> suggest >> > > > > > >> > > that >> > > > > > >> > > > > we change that though and generate the main web site >> > from >> > > > the >> > > > > > >> github >> > > > > > >> > > > repo. >> > > > > > >> > > > > in that way we could easily accept pull requests and >> > > such. i >> > > > > > don't >> > > > > > >> > > think >> > > > > > >> > > > we >> > > > > > >> > > > > want to take a full asciidoc approach and the web >> site >> > > > > > generation >> > > > > > >> > would >> > > > > > >> > > > > probably stay separate from the doc generation, but >> it >> > > would >> > > > > be >> > > > > > >> nice >> > > > > > >> > if >> > > > > > >> > > > we >> > > > > > >> > > > > could bin/generate-web-site.sh for a local build of >> that >> > > > that >> > > > > > thing >> > > > > > >> > > which >> > > > > > >> > > > > could then be published to the apache svn repo. >> anyone >> > > else >> > > > > like >> > > > > > >> that >> > > > > > >> > > > idea? >> > > > > > >> > > > > if so, how would it best be done? >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Robert Dale < >> > > > > [email protected]> >> > > > > > >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Is there a git repo for this and the main >> website? I >> > > > would >> > > > > > like >> > > > > > >> to >> > > > > > >> > > > > > make pull requests to fix some things. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Stephen Mallette < >> > > > > > >> > > > [email protected]> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > The download page is now "live" >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Stephen >> Mallette < >> > > > > > >> > > > > [email protected]> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I assume everyone is cool with making the >> Download >> > > Page >> > > > > > live >> > > > > > >> at >> > > > > > >> > > this >> > > > > > >> > > > > > point >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> as there's been no other feedback in the last >> few >> > > days. >> > > > > > I'll >> > > > > > >> > > > probably >> > > > > > >> > > > > > make >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> some adjustments to the web site tomorrow to >> bring >> > it >> > > > > > online >> > > > > > >> > > > publicly. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Stephen >> Mallette < >> > > > > > >> > > > > [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> I updated the downloads page some more: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> + tweaked the date format a bit to "really" >> match >> > > the >> > > > > > rest of >> > > > > > >> > the >> > > > > > >> > > > > site >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> (which is still inconsistent in other places >> like >> > > > > > changelog - >> > > > > > >> > > dah) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> + added a "verifying downloads" section which >> > talks >> > > > > about >> > > > > > >> > > > > GPG/PGP/etc. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> http://tinkerpop.apache.org/downloads.html >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Stephen >> Mallette >> > < >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [email protected]> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Good feedback Robert/Jason. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Updated: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> http://tinkerpop.apache.org/downloads.html >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Added documentation and included some >> descriptors >> > > to >> > > > > > current >> > > > > > >> > > > > releases. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> Didn't change the date format for now - that's >> > the >> > > > > > format we >> > > > > > >> > use >> > > > > > >> > > > > > everywhere >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> around "release" so didn't want to muck with >> that >> > > at >> > > > > this >> > > > > > >> > point. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Robert Dale < >> > > > > > >> > [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Stephen, I think what Sebb might be getting >> at >> > is >> > > > that >> > > > > > some >> > > > > > >> > > > things >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> should be spelled out even if they are >> obvious >> > to >> > > > > some. >> > > > > > I >> > > > > > >> > agree >> > > > > > >> > > > > with >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> this. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> 3.2.1 (latest, stable) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> 3.1.3 (bug fixes only) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> I think the dates should be in ISO8601 >> format. >> > > > > > YYYY-MM-DD >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Otherwise, I think it looks very good. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> -- >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> Robert Dale >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Jason >> Plurad < >> > > > > > >> > > [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > +1 looks great. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > Link to the documentation, maybe next to >> the >> > > > release >> > > > > > >> notes >> > > > > > >> > > > link, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> would be >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > useful too. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > -- Jason >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Stephen >> > > Mallette >> > > > < >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> [email protected]> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> I think it might be a good idea to >> include a >> > > > > > "Download >> > > > > > >> > Page" >> > > > > > >> > > > on >> > > > > > >> > > > > > our >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> web >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> site. It would let us better list the >> > versions >> > > we >> > > > > > have >> > > > > > >> out >> > > > > > >> > > > there >> > > > > > >> > > > > > and >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> would >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> get us better in line with Apache >> > > Infrastructure >> > > > - >> > > > > > for >> > > > > > >> > > > example: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/ >> > > > > jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1255 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> I'm also seeing that we yet have spots >> where >> > we >> > > > > dont' >> > > > > > >> link >> > > > > > >> > > to >> > > > > > >> > > > > the >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> mirror >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> system. And finally, it would be nice to >> > have a >> > > > > > >> "generic" >> > > > > > >> > > > > download >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> page >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> where we could point external links to - >> like >> > > the >> > > > > new >> > > > > > >> > > > > > "documentation" >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> feature in StackOverflow (right now it's >> > sorta >> > > > > > hardcoded >> > > > > > >> > to >> > > > > > >> > > > the >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> mirror >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> which isn't so good because we'll have to >> > > change >> > > > > that >> > > > > > >> all >> > > > > > >> > > the >> > > > > > >> > > > > > time). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> I quickly took a swipe at such a page: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> http://tinkerpop.apache.org/do >> wnloads.html >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> It is NOT "linked to" by anything at this >> > point >> > > > so >> > > > > > it is >> > > > > > >> > > > > > "hidden". I >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> just >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> wanted to have something that everyone >> could >> > > look >> > > > > at >> > > > > > to >> > > > > > >> > get >> > > > > > >> > > > the >> > > > > > >> > > > > > idea >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> of >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> what such a page might look like. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> Thoughts? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> Thanks, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> Stephen >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Robert Dale >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Robert Dale >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Robert Dale >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Robert Dale >> > >
