*Top posting with summary of mails above to enable better discussion*
*Premise of original mail:*
* Gluster related documentation was spread across
wiki/website-html/gluster-repo and difficult to find.
* We want a new place for documentation(preferebly one single place)
* The workflow to contribute should be easy for non-developers
too.(should definitely not involve cloning repo from gerrit and
sending patch)
*Unanswered questions/ Concerns raised*
* Developer documentation like struct members and their uses should be
in repo so that developers update it along with code changes, else
there is a good chance docs go outdated.
* What is the reviewing mechanism for patches against documentation?
* What tool/system gives a good inline commenting feature and can be
used for discussion?
On 06/23/2015 04:36 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Shravan Chandrashekar
<schan...@redhat.com> wrote:
We would like to finalize on the documentation contribution workflow by 26th
June 2015.
As we have not yet received any comments/suggestion, we will confirm the
recommend workflow after 26th June.
Kindly provide your suggestion on how we can improve this workflow.
There are a couple of aspects which need to be quickly looked through.
(a) a write-up of somewhat detail providing an overview of the new
workflow; how contributors can participate; reviewing mechanism for
patches against documentation; merge and release paths/cadence
(b) at <http://review.gluster.org/#/c/11129/> Niels has a comment
about "about design of structures used in the code" and how he thinks
that it is appropriate if "it stays part of the sources and does not
move out."
He also says "For example, I would like to document some of the memory
layout structures and functions, but this documentation will include
source-code comments and a .txt or .md file with additional details.
Spitting that makes it more difficult to keep in sync."
In this particular example, I'd probably say that it would be better
that such documentation is also part of the docs repo. It lends itself
to re-use as and when required (this particular example seems re-use
friendly).
I'd request that this switch-over to the new workflow and repositories
go ahead with the absolute "documentation" content. Examples/cases
like the above mentioned by Niels can be resolved via discussion and
probably not block the switch.
Currently, mediawiki is read-only. We have ported most of the documents from
mediawiki to the new repository [1].
If you find any document which is not ported, feel free to raise this by
opening an issue in [2] or if you would
like to port your documents, send a pull request.
[1] https://github.com/gluster/glusterdocs
[2] https://github.com/gluster/glusterdocs/issues
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
