On 05/02/2016 04:58 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:52:17PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 05/02/2016 03:34 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:38:13AM -0500, Lana Brindley wrote:
Greetings from Austin!
Yesterday we held the Install Guide planning workgroup. It was a full room,
with some very robust discussion, and I want to thank everyone for
participating and sharing their thoughts on this matter. We have some solid
goals to achieve for Newton now.
The etherpad with the discussion is here:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/austin-docs-workgroup-install
The original spec to create a way for projects to publish Instal Guides has now
been merged, thanks to consensus being achieved at the Design Summit session,
and a few minor edits: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/301284/ We can now
begin work on this.
There is a new spec up to cover the remainder of the work to be done on the
existing Install Guide: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/310588 This still
needs some iterations to get it into shape (including determining the name we
are going to use for the Install Guide). So, patches welcome.
Again, thank you to all the many people who attended the session, and those who
have found me this week and discussed the future of the Install Guide. I'm
confident that this plan has broad acceptance, is achievable during the Newton
cycle, and it moves the documentation project forward.
Feedback is, as always, very welcome.
One question on this: the spec says that projects may publish to
docs.openstack.org/project-install-guide/RELEASE/SERVICE/ (yay!).
Some projects have intermediate releases during the cycle; for example
in Mitaka, ironic had 4.3.0, 5.0.0, and 5.1.0 releases, with 5.1.0 being
the base for stable/mitaka.
Is it okay/expected that projects with this model publish an install
guide for each intermediate release as well? Again, using mitaka, ironic
would publish:
docs.openstack.org/project-install-guide/4.3.0/ironic/
docs.openstack.org/project-install-guide/5.0.0/ironic/
docs.openstack.org/project-install-guide/5.1.0/ironic/
docs.openstack.org/project-install-guide/mitaka/ironic/
Thanks for all the hard work on this! :)
Let me ask this differently:
Let's assume we have one index file for the mitaka version of all install
guides which gets published at mitaka release time. Where should we link to?
Does that help?
Maybe? Clearly the index for Mitaka would point to the final mitaka
install guide (which would be published from stable/mitaka, and accept
backports). However, if we release a new feature in 4.3.0 for example,
and update our install guide, we should publish that with the release.
We wouldn't backport it to Liberty (because the feature didn't exist in
Liberty), but it's still half a cycle until the Mitaka guide is
published.
FWIW, we currently do this for the /developer endpoint:
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic/4.3.0/deploy/install-guide.html
I'd really like to continue doing this. :)
So, if we publish *now* - let's say
install-guide/liberty/index.html
install-guide/mitaka/index.html
install-guide/newton/index.html
Then, ironic would publish the 4.3.0 documentation and the 5.1 - and the
5.1 would be referenced from the mitaka/index.html page. But if 4.3.0 is
published, on which index page should it appear? Or is that just
referenced from releases?
So, I'm fine with you continuing with publishing it - I'm more concerned
on what will be in which index... Have extra versions is not a problem IMHO,
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: 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
