Re: What is the status of developer.gnome.org and help.gnome.org?
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 17:27, Petr Kovar wrote: > > There's also a group of people wanting to do something else for the > > developer site. I went to some of their meetings, but haven't had time > > to keep up. I don't know their status. > > Same here. I think if the developer site group chooses at some point to > go for the same solution as the user help site, they can just do it by > re-using parts of the infra setup, though from what I understood the > group's goal was to switch to a Drupal-like CMS. Any updates there? > There are two categories of content for the developers website: - API references - guides, tutorials, white papers, … A CMS makes sense for the second category; we could literally run a WordPress installation on developer.gnome.org *today*, and with minimal effort port the existing content there. On the other hand, though, the API references are, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, built from the code in the repository of each module; a CMS makes little sense in that case. That's why I was proposing to use the CI infrastructure to build API references from repository events, like tagging a release, or pushing to a branch—or even pushing to a MR, if we want to get an immediate render of the documentation changes it introduces. The problem with generating documentation from CI is that publishing it is kind of complicated. When using GitLab pages, the CI will blow away everything on deploy, which means you can only publish the latest tip of the latest branch. This prevents us from having separate API references for each branch/MR/tag. I've only seen GitLab CI used to deploy artifacts to S3 buckets, so I don't know if we can rsync CI build artefacts to some place on the gnome.org infrastructure (I'd rather avoid involving an S3 bucket, at this point, unless we can afford it for the future); it's something that the GNOME sysadmins would need to investigate/set up. Publishing build artefacts has the added bonus that we could finally get rid of the release tarballs for projects, and just generate the dist archive when pushing a (signed) tag, thus removing a pain point from the maintainers plate—but that has nothing to do with the documentation. Ciao, Emmanuele. -- https://www.bassi.io [@] ebassi [@gmail.com] ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: What is the status of developer.gnome.org and help.gnome.org?
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 08:42:28 -0500 Shaun McCance wrote: > On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 20:19 +, Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel- > list wrote: > > Given the state of library-web’s maintenance and resources, I’m > > actually > > trying to figure out a way to use Gitlab’s CI to build the > > documentation > > and put it somewhere else; I still have to investigate how to achieve > > this > > on the GNOME infrastructure. > > I'd like to switch help.gnome.org to use Pintail. I have a very rough > work in progress of such a setup here: > > https://gitlab.gnome.org/shaunm/help.gnome.org > > It builds straight from git branches. Tarballs are irrelevant. I think this switch should be the docs project's primary goal for the next release cycle, and I'm hoping we can get the necessary support from Infra and other groups in the community to make this happen. > There's also a group of people wanting to do something else for the > developer site. I went to some of their meetings, but haven't had time > to keep up. I don't know their status. Same here. I think if the developer site group chooses at some point to go for the same solution as the user help site, they can just do it by re-using parts of the infra setup, though from what I understood the group's goal was to switch to a Drupal-like CMS. Any updates there? Cheers, pk ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: What is the status of developer.gnome.org and help.gnome.org?
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 20:19 +, Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel- list wrote: > Given the state of library-web’s maintenance and resources, I’m > actually > trying to figure out a way to use Gitlab’s CI to build the > documentation > and put it somewhere else; I still have to investigate how to achieve > this > on the GNOME infrastructure. I'd like to switch help.gnome.org to use Pintail. I have a very rough work in progress of such a setup here: https://gitlab.gnome.org/shaunm/help.gnome.org It builds straight from git branches. Tarballs are irrelevant. There's also a group of people wanting to do something else for the developer site. I went to some of their meetings, but haven't had time to keep up. I don't know their status. -- Shaun ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: What is the status of developer.gnome.org and help.gnome.org?
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 20:19 +, Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel- list wrote: > the switch to Meson for various libraries broke the expectations of > library-web Hi, not only Meson, but also CMake (and eventually anything what doesn't include developer documentation in the release tarballs anymore), as stated here: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=785522 which leads to https://gitlab.gnome.org/Infrastructure/Websites/issues/224 I'm mentioning it here just to not fill duplicates of it. Bye, Milan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: What is the status of developer.gnome.org and help.gnome.org?
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 20:19:11 + Emmanuele Bassi via desktop-devel-list wrote: > Hi Joanne; > > the switch to Meson for various libraries broke the expectations of > library-web, which is used to populate developer.gnome.org. The scripts > expect the HTML for the API reference to be in the release tarballs, but > that’s not the case for Meson-generated dist archives. > > GTK and GLib use a separate location to manually upload documentation > tarballs; this needs configuration changes in library-web, and manual > documentation generation on the maintainers side. > > Given the state of library-web’s maintenance and resources, I’m actually > trying to figure out a way to use Gitlab’s CI to build the documentation > and put it somewhere else; I still have to investigate how to achieve this > on the GNOME infrastructure. In the meantime, you could check in the > Infrastructure/library-web repository for the configuration changes needed > to use an external tarball for the documentation, and open a merge request > to enable it for ATK and other libraries. The tarball names should be included here: https://gitlab.gnome.org/Infrastructure/library-web/blob/master/data/extra-tarballs Though I see atk is already there. Cheers, pk ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: What is the status of developer.gnome.org and help.gnome.org?
Hi Joanne; the switch to Meson for various libraries broke the expectations of library-web, which is used to populate developer.gnome.org. The scripts expect the HTML for the API reference to be in the release tarballs, but that’s not the case for Meson-generated dist archives. GTK and GLib use a separate location to manually upload documentation tarballs; this needs configuration changes in library-web, and manual documentation generation on the maintainers side. Given the state of library-web’s maintenance and resources, I’m actually trying to figure out a way to use Gitlab’s CI to build the documentation and put it somewhere else; I still have to investigate how to achieve this on the GNOME infrastructure. In the meantime, you could check in the Infrastructure/library-web repository for the configuration changes needed to use an external tarball for the documentation, and open a merge request to enable it for ATK and other libraries. Ciao, Emmanuele. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 19:53, Joanmarie Diggs wrote: > Hey guys. > > I was about to file a bug against a browser asking them to implement > some new ATK API, but that API isn't showing up on developer.gnome.org. > Furthermore, looking at https://developer.gnome.org/atk/, I see the > latest version is 2.28.1 even though 2.31.90 was released two weeks ago. > > The AT-SPI2 docs are similarly out of date: > https://developer.gnome.org/libatspi/. > > And now that I look, I've added documentation to Orca that's not showing > up on help.gnome.org. > > So Did we accessibility folks miss a memo somewhere and need to be > doing things differently? > > Thanks in advance, and apologies if there is need something we should > have known but didn't. > > --joanie > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > -- https://www.bassi.io [@] ebassi [@gmail.com] ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
What is the status of developer.gnome.org and help.gnome.org?
Hey guys. I was about to file a bug against a browser asking them to implement some new ATK API, but that API isn't showing up on developer.gnome.org. Furthermore, looking at https://developer.gnome.org/atk/, I see the latest version is 2.28.1 even though 2.31.90 was released two weeks ago. The AT-SPI2 docs are similarly out of date: https://developer.gnome.org/libatspi/. And now that I look, I've added documentation to Orca that's not showing up on help.gnome.org. So Did we accessibility folks miss a memo somewhere and need to be doing things differently? Thanks in advance, and apologies if there is need something we should have known but didn't. --joanie ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
