Andreas, Thanks for your email. I am aware of the reviews you describe below but I was still under the impression that the status from the email on openstack-docs (Mitaka Install Guide testing) [1] and [2] were still valid.
The understanding I had from those email threads is that the door hadn't yet closed. But I'll defer to the doc team; I think you understand the motivation for my request, and I respect (and fully admit that I don't understand) the complexities involved in releasing documentation. I trust that if it is at all possible, you will accommodate the request. Of your options below, I would request #2 if at all possible. Thanks, -amrith [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2016-March/008385.html [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2016-March/008387.html > -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Jaeger [mailto:a...@suse.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 1:46 PM > To: Amrith Kumar <amr...@tesora.com>; OpenStack Development Mailing List > (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Cc: mkassaw...@gmail.com; Lana Brindley <openst...@lanabrindley.com>; Mike > Perez <m...@openstack.org>; openstack-d...@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [docs] Our Install Guides Only Cover Defcore > - What about big tent? > > On 04/13/2016 07:17 PM, Amrith Kumar wrote: > > Andreas, Lana, Mike, Matt, and others who've been active on this > > thread, > > > > I've been following this conversation about installation documentation > and core vs. non-core projects from afar and was under the impression that > the changes being proposed would take effect for Newton and moving > forward. > > > > Today I was informed that after a lot of effort and testing, the > installation guide for Trove/Mitaka which is ready and up for review[1] > has been placed on hold pending the outcome of your discussions in Austin. > > > The documentation that is now available and ready for review is for the > Mitaka series and should not, I believe, be held up because there is now a > proposal afoot to put non-core project installation guides somewhere else. > If we choose to do that, that's a conversation for Newton, I believe, and > I believe that the Trove installation guide for Mitaka should be > considered for inclusion along with the other Mitaka documentation. > > Amrith, I'm a bit surprised by this email and request. So, let me give > some more context. > > There's a spec out: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/290053 for this work which came very > late. Bogdan asked on the 23rd of March, and I commented on the spec with > -1 on the 27th of March that this is a post-Mitaka topic. Then, on the > 29th of March, your referenced change gets submitted -without any followup > discussion on the spec. > > Would you have taken a code change under these conditions for trove > itself? > > While I applaud your team's work, the documentation team also needs to > review content you propose for consistency - and that takes time. We're > still flashing out some details for some of the guides for Mitaka. > > > The lack of installation guides for a project is a serious challenge for > deployers and users, and much work has been expended getting the Trove > documentation ready and thoroughly tested on Ubuntu, RDO and SUSE. > > > > I'm therefore requesting that the doc team consider this set of > documentation for the Mitaka series and make it available with the other > install guides for other projects after it has been reviewed, and not hold > it subject to the outcome of some Newton focused discussion that is to > happen in Austin. > > I'm glad about the work the team has done and will not block this going in > on my own. IMHO think we have the following options: > > 1) Wait until Austin and speed track this change afterwards based on the > outcome of the discussion there if possible. > 2) Take the change in with the explicit understanding that it might be > taken out again based on the general Install Guide discussion. > 3) Do nothing for Mitaka. > > I'm happy to take my -2 away from the change after the spec has been > approved and we've decided which of the options to take - and for that I > defer to Lana and Matt. > > So, let's discuss how to move forward on the documentation list with the > docs team and see what they suggest, > > Andreas > > > Thanks, > > > > -amrith > > > > > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/298929/ > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Andreas Jaeger [mailto:a...@suse.com] > >> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 2:42 PM > >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [docs] Our Install Guides Only Cover > >> Defcore > >> - What about big tent? > >> > >> On 04/04/2016 12:12 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >>> Doug Hellmann wrote: > >>>>> [...] > >>>>> We would love to add all sufficiently mature projects to the > >>>>> installation guide because it increases visibility and adoption by > >>>>> operators, but we lack resources to develop a source installation > >>>>> mechanism that retains as much simplicity as possible for our > >>>>> audience. > >>>> > >>>> I think it would be a big mistake to try to create one guide for > >>>> installing all OpenStack projects. As you say, testing what we have > >>>> now is already a monumental task and impedes your ability to make > >>>> changes. Adding more projects, with ever more dependencies and > >>>> configuration issues to the work the same team is doing would bury > >>>> the current documentation team. So I think focusing on the DefCore > >>>> list, or even a smaller list of projects with tight installation > >>>> integration requirements, makes sense for the team currently > >>>> producing the installation guide. > >>> > >>> Yes, the base install guide should ideally serve as a reference to > >>> reach that first step where you have all the underlying services > >>> (MySQL, > >>> Rabbit) and a base set of functionality (starterkit:compute ?) > >>> installed and working. That is where we need high-quality, > >>> proactively-checked, easy to understand content. > >>> > >>> Then additional guides (ideally produced by each project team with > >>> tooling and mentoring from the docs team) can pick up from that base > >>> first step, assuming their users have completed that first step > >>> successfully. > >>> > >> > >> Fully agreed. > >> > >> I just wrote a first draft spec for all of this and look forward to > >> reviews. > >> > >> I'll enhance some more tomorrow, might copy a bit from above (saw > >> this too late). > >> > >> https://review.openstack.org/301284 > >> > >> Andreas > >> -- > >> Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi > >> SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > >> GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, > >> HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) > >> GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 > >> A126 > >> > >> > >> _____________________________________________________________________ > >> _____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >> Unsubscribe: > >> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > -- > Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi > SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, > HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) > GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev