Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Denis Magda]

Alex,

Thanks a lot for preparing the list. It's truly handy. We'll take care of
all the unassigned tickets by reaching out to the contributors.

-
Denis


On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 4:13 AM Alex Plehanov 
wrote:

> Artem,
>
> Ok, let's suggest edits for 2.9 release documentations via pull request to
> ignite-7595 branch if there are no other objections.
>
> чт, 6 авг. 2020 г. в 13:20, Artem Budnikov :
>
> > Alex,
> >
> > The documentation source files are still in the IGNITE-7595 branch. I
> > haven't pushed them to the master yet, but I can do so if it is
> > necessary. Or, you can add your changes to this branch. I added an
> > instruction on how to contribute:
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/IGNITE-7595/docs/README.adoc
> >
> > I suggest we do the first release of the new docs manually (just like we
> > do on readme.io) to get a sense of how the process works and how to
> > automate it better. Then, I'll document the entire process on our wiki.
> >
> > Sounds good?
> >
> > Artem
> >
> > On 06.08.2020 11:37, Alex Plehanov wrote:
> > > Denis, Artem,
> > >
> > > I've marked the "tracing" ticket as important.
> > > Also, I've added a new section to the release page [1] and created
> > > documentation tickets for some features. Now there is a documentation
> > > ticket exists for each important feature implemented in 2.9.
> > > I know that some Igniters are currently working on documentation, but
> the
> > > question is still unanswered: where to push changes? To GitHub, or to
> > > readme.io? Guys, can you clarify, please?
> > >
> > > [1]:
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Documentationtasksforimportantfeaturesimplementedin2.9
> > >
> > >
> > > вт, 4 авг. 2020 г. в 21:08, Denis Magda :
> > >
> > >> Hi Alex,
> > >>
> > >> Certainly, the new documentation should not be treated as a
> showstopper,
> > >> and if the code is ready much earlier, then we can release the docs on
> > >> readme.io.
> > >>
> > >> But, it's not clear what's the documentation readiness status. As per
> > our
> > >> updated release process, the docs need to be ready before the voting
> is
> > >> started [1]. That change was discussed and introduced after our
> > >> lessons-learned conversations related to the 2.8 release.
> > >>
> > >> Could you please help to figure out the status by preparing a list of
> > >> documentation tasks that must be completed before the voting time (all
> > >> significant features and changes)? The "most important tasks" section
> > [2]
> > >> already lists most of them, but the list might be incomplete. For
> > example,
> > >> the tracing feature should be added in 2.9, but it's not in the
> > important
> > >> tasks list. There might be something else profound that we should put
> on
> > >> paper.
> > >>
> > >> Once we get the list, we can start working with the contributors in
> > charge
> > >> to get things done. If some documentation pages won't be finished in 2
> > >> weeks from now, then it's reasonable to contribute the 2.9 docs to the
> > new
> > >> docs repository that will be ready for the release in 3-4 weeks. Just
> my
> > >> thinking.
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.1EnsureDocumentationReadinessandAccouncementBlogPostActivity
> > >> [2]
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Themostimportantreleasetasks
> > >>
> > >> -
> > >> Denis
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:54 AM Alex Plehanov  >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Denis,
> > >>>
> > >>> We have some performance drop on benchmarks, so we need some time to
> > find
> > >>> problematic commit and analyze it. I hope this will be completed
> during
> > >> the
> > >>> current week and we move to the "Vote preparation" phase to the start
> > of
> > >>> next week.
> > >>> I think waiting for another month due to documentation it's too much.
> > >>> Do we have an option to release with documentation on readme.io and
> > then
> > >>> move documentation in the new format during next month?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> пн, 3 авг. 2020 г. в 17:55, Denis Magda :
> > >>>
> >  I would wait for 3-4 weeks and release the new docs in 2.9. It means
> > >> that
> >  the release should be announced the first week of September which is
> > >> not
> > >>> a
> >  huge slip. Moreover, it feels like the testing phase and release
> > >>> procedures
> >  will not be completed sooner.
> > 
> >  So, I would suggest contributing 2.9 related page to the new
> > >>> documentation
> >  repository.
> > 
> > 
> >  Denis
> > 
> >  On Monday, August 3, 2020, Artem Budnikov <
> > a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Maxim,
> > >
> > > The new docs project is not finished yet. There are still a lot of
> > >>> pages
> > > to port to the new format, and we are 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Alex Plehanov]

Artem,

Ok, let's suggest edits for 2.9 release documentations via pull request to
ignite-7595 branch if there are no other objections.

чт, 6 авг. 2020 г. в 13:20, Artem Budnikov :

> Alex,
>
> The documentation source files are still in the IGNITE-7595 branch. I
> haven't pushed them to the master yet, but I can do so if it is
> necessary. Or, you can add your changes to this branch. I added an
> instruction on how to contribute:
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/IGNITE-7595/docs/README.adoc
>
> I suggest we do the first release of the new docs manually (just like we
> do on readme.io) to get a sense of how the process works and how to
> automate it better. Then, I'll document the entire process on our wiki.
>
> Sounds good?
>
> Artem
>
> On 06.08.2020 11:37, Alex Plehanov wrote:
> > Denis, Artem,
> >
> > I've marked the "tracing" ticket as important.
> > Also, I've added a new section to the release page [1] and created
> > documentation tickets for some features. Now there is a documentation
> > ticket exists for each important feature implemented in 2.9.
> > I know that some Igniters are currently working on documentation, but the
> > question is still unanswered: where to push changes? To GitHub, or to
> > readme.io? Guys, can you clarify, please?
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Documentationtasksforimportantfeaturesimplementedin2.9
> >
> >
> > вт, 4 авг. 2020 г. в 21:08, Denis Magda :
> >
> >> Hi Alex,
> >>
> >> Certainly, the new documentation should not be treated as a showstopper,
> >> and if the code is ready much earlier, then we can release the docs on
> >> readme.io.
> >>
> >> But, it's not clear what's the documentation readiness status. As per
> our
> >> updated release process, the docs need to be ready before the voting is
> >> started [1]. That change was discussed and introduced after our
> >> lessons-learned conversations related to the 2.8 release.
> >>
> >> Could you please help to figure out the status by preparing a list of
> >> documentation tasks that must be completed before the voting time (all
> >> significant features and changes)? The "most important tasks" section
> [2]
> >> already lists most of them, but the list might be incomplete. For
> example,
> >> the tracing feature should be added in 2.9, but it's not in the
> important
> >> tasks list. There might be something else profound that we should put on
> >> paper.
> >>
> >> Once we get the list, we can start working with the contributors in
> charge
> >> to get things done. If some documentation pages won't be finished in 2
> >> weeks from now, then it's reasonable to contribute the 2.9 docs to the
> new
> >> docs repository that will be ready for the release in 3-4 weeks. Just my
> >> thinking.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.1EnsureDocumentationReadinessandAccouncementBlogPostActivity
> >> [2]
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Themostimportantreleasetasks
> >>
> >> -
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:54 AM Alex Plehanov 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Denis,
> >>>
> >>> We have some performance drop on benchmarks, so we need some time to
> find
> >>> problematic commit and analyze it. I hope this will be completed during
> >> the
> >>> current week and we move to the "Vote preparation" phase to the start
> of
> >>> next week.
> >>> I think waiting for another month due to documentation it's too much.
> >>> Do we have an option to release with documentation on readme.io and
> then
> >>> move documentation in the new format during next month?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> пн, 3 авг. 2020 г. в 17:55, Denis Magda :
> >>>
>  I would wait for 3-4 weeks and release the new docs in 2.9. It means
> >> that
>  the release should be announced the first week of September which is
> >> not
> >>> a
>  huge slip. Moreover, it feels like the testing phase and release
> >>> procedures
>  will not be completed sooner.
> 
>  So, I would suggest contributing 2.9 related page to the new
> >>> documentation
>  repository.
> 
> 
>  Denis
> 
>  On Monday, August 3, 2020, Artem Budnikov <
> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com
>  wrote:
> 
> > Hi Maxim,
> >
> > The new docs project is not finished yet. There are still a lot of
> >>> pages
> > to port to the new format, and we are still working on the
> >> integration
>  with
> > the web-site. Nevertheless, we can try to publish the Ignite 2.9
> > documentation on the web-site in the new format. The documentation
> >> will
>  not
> > be 100% complete, but it will be updated significantly and will
> >> contain
> > most of the information our users need. Actually, I would like to do
>  that,
> > but it all depends on how much time I have before Ignite 2.9 is
> >>> released.
> > 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Artem Budnikov]

Alex,

The documentation source files are still in the IGNITE-7595 branch. I 
haven't pushed them to the master yet, but I can do so if it is 
necessary. Or, you can add your changes to this branch. I added an 
instruction on how to contribute: 
https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/IGNITE-7595/docs/README.adoc


I suggest we do the first release of the new docs manually (just like we 
do on readme.io) to get a sense of how the process works and how to 
automate it better. Then, I'll document the entire process on our wiki.


Sounds good?

Artem

On 06.08.2020 11:37, Alex Plehanov wrote:

Denis, Artem,

I've marked the "tracing" ticket as important.
Also, I've added a new section to the release page [1] and created
documentation tickets for some features. Now there is a documentation
ticket exists for each important feature implemented in 2.9.
I know that some Igniters are currently working on documentation, but the
question is still unanswered: where to push changes? To GitHub, or to
readme.io? Guys, can you clarify, please?

[1]:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Documentationtasksforimportantfeaturesimplementedin2.9


вт, 4 авг. 2020 г. в 21:08, Denis Magda :


Hi Alex,

Certainly, the new documentation should not be treated as a showstopper,
and if the code is ready much earlier, then we can release the docs on
readme.io.

But, it's not clear what's the documentation readiness status. As per our
updated release process, the docs need to be ready before the voting is
started [1]. That change was discussed and introduced after our
lessons-learned conversations related to the 2.8 release.

Could you please help to figure out the status by preparing a list of
documentation tasks that must be completed before the voting time (all
significant features and changes)? The "most important tasks" section [2]
already lists most of them, but the list might be incomplete. For example,
the tracing feature should be added in 2.9, but it's not in the important
tasks list. There might be something else profound that we should put on
paper.

Once we get the list, we can start working with the contributors in charge
to get things done. If some documentation pages won't be finished in 2
weeks from now, then it's reasonable to contribute the 2.9 docs to the new
docs repository that will be ready for the release in 3-4 weeks. Just my
thinking.

[1]

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.1EnsureDocumentationReadinessandAccouncementBlogPostActivity
[2]

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Themostimportantreleasetasks

-
Denis


On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:54 AM Alex Plehanov 
wrote:


Denis,

We have some performance drop on benchmarks, so we need some time to find
problematic commit and analyze it. I hope this will be completed during

the

current week and we move to the "Vote preparation" phase to the start of
next week.
I think waiting for another month due to documentation it's too much.
Do we have an option to release with documentation on readme.io and then
move documentation in the new format during next month?



пн, 3 авг. 2020 г. в 17:55, Denis Magda :


I would wait for 3-4 weeks and release the new docs in 2.9. It means

that

the release should be announced the first week of September which is

not

a

huge slip. Moreover, it feels like the testing phase and release

procedures

will not be completed sooner.

So, I would suggest contributing 2.9 related page to the new

documentation

repository.


Denis

On Monday, August 3, 2020, Artem Budnikov 
Hi Maxim,

The new docs project is not finished yet. There are still a lot of

pages

to port to the new format, and we are still working on the

integration

with

the web-site. Nevertheless, we can try to publish the Ignite 2.9
documentation on the web-site in the new format. The documentation

will

not

be 100% complete, but it will be updated significantly and will

contain

most of the information our users need. Actually, I would like to do

that,

but it all depends on how much time I have before Ignite 2.9 is

released.

I'd say 2-3 weeks would be enough for me to finish all tasks that are
critical for the publication.

If we can wait with release 2.9 that much time, then I'll prepare the
instruction on how to contribute to the docs.

What do you think?

-Artem

On 03.08.2020 12:24, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:


Artem,

I'd like to submit some documentation changes for 2.9 release.

Should

I update docs on readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:06, Artem Budnikov
 wrote:


Hi Alex,

Sorry, I missed this message. There is still a lot of work on the

docs.

When is version 2.9 going to be released?

-Artem

On 22.07.2020 10:35, Alex Plehanov wrote:


Guys,

What about documentation for 2.9 release? Are we going to publish

it

on

readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
What about new 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Alex Plehanov]

Denis, Artem,

I've marked the "tracing" ticket as important.
Also, I've added a new section to the release page [1] and created
documentation tickets for some features. Now there is a documentation
ticket exists for each important feature implemented in 2.9.
I know that some Igniters are currently working on documentation, but the
question is still unanswered: where to push changes? To GitHub, or to
readme.io? Guys, can you clarify, please?

[1]:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Documentationtasksforimportantfeaturesimplementedin2.9


вт, 4 авг. 2020 г. в 21:08, Denis Magda :

> Hi Alex,
>
> Certainly, the new documentation should not be treated as a showstopper,
> and if the code is ready much earlier, then we can release the docs on
> readme.io.
>
> But, it's not clear what's the documentation readiness status. As per our
> updated release process, the docs need to be ready before the voting is
> started [1]. That change was discussed and introduced after our
> lessons-learned conversations related to the 2.8 release.
>
> Could you please help to figure out the status by preparing a list of
> documentation tasks that must be completed before the voting time (all
> significant features and changes)? The "most important tasks" section [2]
> already lists most of them, but the list might be incomplete. For example,
> the tracing feature should be added in 2.9, but it's not in the important
> tasks list. There might be something else profound that we should put on
> paper.
>
> Once we get the list, we can start working with the contributors in charge
> to get things done. If some documentation pages won't be finished in 2
> weeks from now, then it's reasonable to contribute the 2.9 docs to the new
> docs repository that will be ready for the release in 3-4 weeks. Just my
> thinking.
>
> [1]
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.1EnsureDocumentationReadinessandAccouncementBlogPostActivity
> [2]
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Themostimportantreleasetasks
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:54 AM Alex Plehanov 
> wrote:
>
> > Denis,
> >
> > We have some performance drop on benchmarks, so we need some time to find
> > problematic commit and analyze it. I hope this will be completed during
> the
> > current week and we move to the "Vote preparation" phase to the start of
> > next week.
> > I think waiting for another month due to documentation it's too much.
> > Do we have an option to release with documentation on readme.io and then
> > move documentation in the new format during next month?
> >
> >
> >
> > пн, 3 авг. 2020 г. в 17:55, Denis Magda :
> >
> > > I would wait for 3-4 weeks and release the new docs in 2.9. It means
> that
> > > the release should be announced the first week of September which is
> not
> > a
> > > huge slip. Moreover, it feels like the testing phase and release
> > procedures
> > > will not be completed sooner.
> > >
> > > So, I would suggest contributing 2.9 related page to the new
> > documentation
> > > repository.
> > >
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Monday, August 3, 2020, Artem Budnikov  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > The new docs project is not finished yet. There are still a lot of
> > pages
> > > > to port to the new format, and we are still working on the
> integration
> > > with
> > > > the web-site. Nevertheless, we can try to publish the Ignite 2.9
> > > > documentation on the web-site in the new format. The documentation
> will
> > > not
> > > > be 100% complete, but it will be updated significantly and will
> contain
> > > > most of the information our users need. Actually, I would like to do
> > > that,
> > > > but it all depends on how much time I have before Ignite 2.9 is
> > released.
> > > > I'd say 2-3 weeks would be enough for me to finish all tasks that are
> > > > critical for the publication.
> > > >
> > > > If we can wait with release 2.9 that much time, then I'll prepare the
> > > > instruction on how to contribute to the docs.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > -Artem
> > > >
> > > > On 03.08.2020 12:24, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Artem,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'd like to submit some documentation changes for 2.9 release.
> Should
> > > >> I update docs on readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:06, Artem Budnikov
> > > >>  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Alex,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sorry, I missed this message. There is still a lot of work on the
> > docs.
> > > >>> When is version 2.9 going to be released?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Artem
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 22.07.2020 10:35, Alex Plehanov wrote:
> > > >>>
> > >  Guys,
> > > 
> > >  What about documentation for 2.9 release? Are we going to publish
> it
> > > on
> > >  readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
> > >  What 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Denis Magda]

Hi Alex,

Certainly, the new documentation should not be treated as a showstopper,
and if the code is ready much earlier, then we can release the docs on
readme.io.

But, it's not clear what's the documentation readiness status. As per our
updated release process, the docs need to be ready before the voting is
started [1]. That change was discussed and introduced after our
lessons-learned conversations related to the 2.8 release.

Could you please help to figure out the status by preparing a list of
documentation tasks that must be completed before the voting time (all
significant features and changes)? The "most important tasks" section [2]
already lists most of them, but the list might be incomplete. For example,
the tracing feature should be added in 2.9, but it's not in the important
tasks list. There might be something else profound that we should put on
paper.

Once we get the list, we can start working with the contributors in charge
to get things done. If some documentation pages won't be finished in 2
weeks from now, then it's reasonable to contribute the 2.9 docs to the new
docs repository that will be ready for the release in 3-4 weeks. Just my
thinking.

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.1EnsureDocumentationReadinessandAccouncementBlogPostActivity
[2]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9#ApacheIgnite2.9-Themostimportantreleasetasks

-
Denis


On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:54 AM Alex Plehanov 
wrote:

> Denis,
>
> We have some performance drop on benchmarks, so we need some time to find
> problematic commit and analyze it. I hope this will be completed during the
> current week and we move to the "Vote preparation" phase to the start of
> next week.
> I think waiting for another month due to documentation it's too much.
> Do we have an option to release with documentation on readme.io and then
> move documentation in the new format during next month?
>
>
>
> пн, 3 авг. 2020 г. в 17:55, Denis Magda :
>
> > I would wait for 3-4 weeks and release the new docs in 2.9. It means that
> > the release should be announced the first week of September which is not
> a
> > huge slip. Moreover, it feels like the testing phase and release
> procedures
> > will not be completed sooner.
> >
> > So, I would suggest contributing 2.9 related page to the new
> documentation
> > repository.
> >
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > On Monday, August 3, 2020, Artem Budnikov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Maxim,
> > >
> > > The new docs project is not finished yet. There are still a lot of
> pages
> > > to port to the new format, and we are still working on the integration
> > with
> > > the web-site. Nevertheless, we can try to publish the Ignite 2.9
> > > documentation on the web-site in the new format. The documentation will
> > not
> > > be 100% complete, but it will be updated significantly and will contain
> > > most of the information our users need. Actually, I would like to do
> > that,
> > > but it all depends on how much time I have before Ignite 2.9 is
> released.
> > > I'd say 2-3 weeks would be enough for me to finish all tasks that are
> > > critical for the publication.
> > >
> > > If we can wait with release 2.9 that much time, then I'll prepare the
> > > instruction on how to contribute to the docs.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > -Artem
> > >
> > > On 03.08.2020 12:24, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> > >
> > >> Artem,
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to submit some documentation changes for 2.9 release. Should
> > >> I update docs on readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:06, Artem Budnikov
> > >>  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Alex,
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry, I missed this message. There is still a lot of work on the
> docs.
> > >>> When is version 2.9 going to be released?
> > >>>
> > >>> -Artem
> > >>>
> > >>> On 22.07.2020 10:35, Alex Plehanov wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Guys,
> > 
> >  What about documentation for 2.9 release? Are we going to publish it
> > on
> >  readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
> >  What about new edits? Should we still edit pages on readme.io or
> >  already
> >  make changes in git repository?
> >  Artem, could you please clarify the current documentation workflow?
> > 
> > 
> >  пн, 20 июл. 2020 г. в 16:42, Artem Budnikov <
> >  a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>:
> > 
> >  Denis,
> > >
> > > How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the
> > >>
> > > website
> > >
> > >> repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?
> > >>
> > > Yes, I'll look into this this week. This shouldn't be very
> difficult.
> > >
> > > -Artem
> > >
> > > On 18.07.2020 00:43, Denis Magda wrote:
> > >
> > >> Worked out well on my end. Thanks for sending the update!
> > >>
> > >> How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to
> the
> > 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Alex Plehanov]

Denis,

We have some performance drop on benchmarks, so we need some time to find
problematic commit and analyze it. I hope this will be completed during the
current week and we move to the "Vote preparation" phase to the start of
next week.
I think waiting for another month due to documentation it's too much.
Do we have an option to release with documentation on readme.io and then
move documentation in the new format during next month?



пн, 3 авг. 2020 г. в 17:55, Denis Magda :

> I would wait for 3-4 weeks and release the new docs in 2.9. It means that
> the release should be announced the first week of September which is not a
> huge slip. Moreover, it feels like the testing phase and release procedures
> will not be completed sooner.
>
> So, I would suggest contributing 2.9 related page to the new documentation
> repository.
>
>
> Denis
>
> On Monday, August 3, 2020, Artem Budnikov 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Maxim,
> >
> > The new docs project is not finished yet. There are still a lot of pages
> > to port to the new format, and we are still working on the integration
> with
> > the web-site. Nevertheless, we can try to publish the Ignite 2.9
> > documentation on the web-site in the new format. The documentation will
> not
> > be 100% complete, but it will be updated significantly and will contain
> > most of the information our users need. Actually, I would like to do
> that,
> > but it all depends on how much time I have before Ignite 2.9 is released.
> > I'd say 2-3 weeks would be enough for me to finish all tasks that are
> > critical for the publication.
> >
> > If we can wait with release 2.9 that much time, then I'll prepare the
> > instruction on how to contribute to the docs.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > -Artem
> >
> > On 03.08.2020 12:24, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> >
> >> Artem,
> >>
> >> I'd like to submit some documentation changes for 2.9 release. Should
> >> I update docs on readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
> >>
> >> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:06, Artem Budnikov
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Alex,
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, I missed this message. There is still a lot of work on the docs.
> >>> When is version 2.9 going to be released?
> >>>
> >>> -Artem
> >>>
> >>> On 22.07.2020 10:35, Alex Plehanov wrote:
> >>>
>  Guys,
> 
>  What about documentation for 2.9 release? Are we going to publish it
> on
>  readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
>  What about new edits? Should we still edit pages on readme.io or
>  already
>  make changes in git repository?
>  Artem, could you please clarify the current documentation workflow?
> 
> 
>  пн, 20 июл. 2020 г. в 16:42, Artem Budnikov <
>  a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>:
> 
>  Denis,
> >
> > How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the
> >>
> > website
> >
> >> repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?
> >>
> > Yes, I'll look into this this week. This shouldn't be very difficult.
> >
> > -Artem
> >
> > On 18.07.2020 00:43, Denis Magda wrote:
> >
> >> Worked out well on my end. Thanks for sending the update!
> >>
> >> How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the
> >>
> > website
> >
> >> repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?
> >>
> >> -
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:27 AM Artem Budnikov <
> >>
> > a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> I've prepared the initial set of source files for the Ignite
> >>> documentation. If you are interested, you can take a look at
> >>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs
> >>>
> >>> You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want to view the
> docs
> >>> in
> >>> your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions. Some
> people
> >>> had
> >>> troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction on
> how
> >>> to
> >>> use jekyll docker image.
> >>>
> >>> If you have any comments on the overall approach, please let me
> know.
> >>> The styles and content are still a work in progress, so please
> don't
> >>> report issues related to that.
> >>>
> >>> -Artem
> >>>
> >>> On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote:
> >>>
>  +1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier
>  contribution
> 
> >>> for
> >
> >> docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit PR
> for
> 
> >>> docs)
> >>>
>  to the document page on site.
> 
>  As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's
>  products
> 
> >>> in
> >
> >> separate repos, for example.
> 
>  On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov <
> 
> >>> 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Denis Magda]

I would wait for 3-4 weeks and release the new docs in 2.9. It means that
the release should be announced the first week of September which is not a
huge slip. Moreover, it feels like the testing phase and release procedures
will not be completed sooner.

So, I would suggest contributing 2.9 related page to the new documentation
repository.


Denis

On Monday, August 3, 2020, Artem Budnikov 
wrote:

> Hi Maxim,
>
> The new docs project is not finished yet. There are still a lot of pages
> to port to the new format, and we are still working on the integration with
> the web-site. Nevertheless, we can try to publish the Ignite 2.9
> documentation on the web-site in the new format. The documentation will not
> be 100% complete, but it will be updated significantly and will contain
> most of the information our users need. Actually, I would like to do that,
> but it all depends on how much time I have before Ignite 2.9 is released.
> I'd say 2-3 weeks would be enough for me to finish all tasks that are
> critical for the publication.
>
> If we can wait with release 2.9 that much time, then I'll prepare the
> instruction on how to contribute to the docs.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Artem
>
> On 03.08.2020 12:24, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
>
>> Artem,
>>
>> I'd like to submit some documentation changes for 2.9 release. Should
>> I update docs on readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
>>
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:06, Artem Budnikov
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> Sorry, I missed this message. There is still a lot of work on the docs.
>>> When is version 2.9 going to be released?
>>>
>>> -Artem
>>>
>>> On 22.07.2020 10:35, Alex Plehanov wrote:
>>>
 Guys,

 What about documentation for 2.9 release? Are we going to publish it on
 readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
 What about new edits? Should we still edit pages on readme.io or
 already
 make changes in git repository?
 Artem, could you please clarify the current documentation workflow?


 пн, 20 июл. 2020 г. в 16:42, Artem Budnikov <
 a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>:

 Denis,
>
> How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the
>>
> website
>
>> repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?
>>
> Yes, I'll look into this this week. This shouldn't be very difficult.
>
> -Artem
>
> On 18.07.2020 00:43, Denis Magda wrote:
>
>> Worked out well on my end. Thanks for sending the update!
>>
>> How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the
>>
> website
>
>> repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?
>>
>> -
>> Denis
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:27 AM Artem Budnikov <
>>
> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I've prepared the initial set of source files for the Ignite
>>> documentation. If you are interested, you can take a look at
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs
>>>
>>> You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want to view the docs
>>> in
>>> your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions. Some people
>>> had
>>> troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction on how
>>> to
>>> use jekyll docker image.
>>>
>>> If you have any comments on the overall approach, please let me know.
>>> The styles and content are still a work in progress, so please don't
>>> report issues related to that.
>>>
>>> -Artem
>>>
>>> On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote:
>>>
 +1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier
 contribution

>>> for
>
>> docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit PR for

>>> docs)
>>>
 to the document page on site.

 As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's
 products

>>> in
>
>> separate repos, for example.

 On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov <

>>> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
>>>
 wrote:

 OK, let's give it a try.
>
> The way I see it, the documentation source files will be located in
>
 the
>
>> "/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, and
>
 build
>
>> scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you know when
> basic setup is ready.
>
> -Artem
>
> On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote:
>
>> I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same
>>
> repository
>
>> with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the
>>
> release
>>>
 artifacts at the same time. So, +1 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Artem Budnikov]

Hi Maxim,

The new docs project is not finished yet. There are still a lot of pages 
to port to the new format, and we are still working on the integration 
with the web-site. Nevertheless, we can try to publish the Ignite 2.9 
documentation on the web-site in the new format. The documentation will 
not be 100% complete, but it will be updated significantly and will 
contain most of the information our users need. Actually, I would like 
to do that, but it all depends on how much time I have before Ignite 2.9 
is released. I'd say 2-3 weeks would be enough for me to finish all 
tasks that are critical for the publication.


If we can wait with release 2.9 that much time, then I'll prepare the 
instruction on how to contribute to the docs.


What do you think?

-Artem

On 03.08.2020 12:24, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:

Artem,

I'd like to submit some documentation changes for 2.9 release. Should
I update docs on readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:06, Artem Budnikov
 wrote:

Hi Alex,

Sorry, I missed this message. There is still a lot of work on the docs.
When is version 2.9 going to be released?

-Artem

On 22.07.2020 10:35, Alex Plehanov wrote:

Guys,

What about documentation for 2.9 release? Are we going to publish it on
readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
What about new edits? Should we still edit pages on readme.io or already
make changes in git repository?
Artem, could you please clarify the current documentation workflow?


пн, 20 июл. 2020 г. в 16:42, Artem Budnikov :


Denis,


How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the

website

repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?

Yes, I'll look into this this week. This shouldn't be very difficult.

-Artem

On 18.07.2020 00:43, Denis Magda wrote:

Worked out well on my end. Thanks for sending the update!

How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the

website

repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?

-
Denis


On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:27 AM Artem Budnikov <

a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>

wrote:


Hi everyone,

I've prepared the initial set of source files for the Ignite
documentation. If you are interested, you can take a look at
https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs

You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want to view the docs in
your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions. Some people had
troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction on how to
use jekyll docker image.

If you have any comments on the overall approach, please let me know.
The styles and content are still a work in progress, so please don't
report issues related to that.

-Artem

On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote:

+1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier contribution

for

docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit PR for

docs)

to the document page on site.

As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's products

in

separate repos, for example.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov <

a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>

wrote:


OK, let's give it a try.

The way I see it, the documentation source files will be located in

the

"/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, and

build

scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you know when
basic setup is ready.

-Artem

On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote:

I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same

repository

with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the

release

artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw documentation

ascii-doc

pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version needs to

reside

on

the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can create

tools

to do this in one click.

Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the opposite, and

they

suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if

committers

to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a review

later

if

needed.

-
Denis


On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov <

a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>

wrote:


Pavel,


I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
separate repo,

Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be

stored

in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to

date.

I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been

released

in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I

understand

that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but

it

looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think

about

a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this
inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it
through.


we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace)

from

the IDE.

I think you can add the 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Artem,

I'd like to submit some documentation changes for 2.9 release. Should
I update docs on readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:06, Artem Budnikov
 wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> Sorry, I missed this message. There is still a lot of work on the docs.
> When is version 2.9 going to be released?
>
> -Artem
>
> On 22.07.2020 10:35, Alex Plehanov wrote:
> > Guys,
> >
> > What about documentation for 2.9 release? Are we going to publish it on
> > readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
> > What about new edits? Should we still edit pages on readme.io or already
> > make changes in git repository?
> > Artem, could you please clarify the current documentation workflow?
> >
> >
> > пн, 20 июл. 2020 г. в 16:42, Artem Budnikov :
> >
> >> Denis,
> >>
> >>> How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the
> >> website
> >>> repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?
> >> Yes, I'll look into this this week. This shouldn't be very difficult.
> >>
> >> -Artem
> >>
> >> On 18.07.2020 00:43, Denis Magda wrote:
> >>> Worked out well on my end. Thanks for sending the update!
> >>>
> >>> How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the
> >> website
> >>> repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:27 AM Artem Budnikov <
> >> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Hi everyone,
> 
>  I've prepared the initial set of source files for the Ignite
>  documentation. If you are interested, you can take a look at
>  https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs
> 
>  You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want to view the docs in
>  your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions. Some people had
>  troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction on how to
>  use jekyll docker image.
> 
>  If you have any comments on the overall approach, please let me know.
>  The styles and content are still a work in progress, so please don't
>  report issues related to that.
> 
>  -Artem
> 
>  On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote:
> > +1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier contribution
> >> for
> > docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit PR for
>  docs)
> > to the document page on site.
> >
> > As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's products
> >> in
> > separate repos, for example.
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov <
>  a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> OK, let's give it a try.
> >>
> >> The way I see it, the documentation source files will be located in
> >> the
> >> "/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, and
> >> build
> >> scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you know when
> >> basic setup is ready.
> >>
> >> -Artem
> >>
> >> On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote:
> >>> I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same
> >> repository
> >>> with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the
>  release
> >>> artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw documentation
> >> ascii-doc
> >>> pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version needs to
>  reside
> >> on
> >>> the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can create
>  tools
> >>> to do this in one click.
> >>>
> >>> Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the opposite, and
> >> they
> >>> suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if
>  committers
> >>> to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a review
> >> later
> >> if
> >>> needed.
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov <
> >> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Pavel,
> 
> > I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
> > separate repo,
>  Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be
>  stored
>  in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to
>  date.
>  I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been
>  released
>  in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I
> >> understand
>  that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but
> >> it
>  looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think
>  about
>  a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this
>  inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it
>  through.
> 
> > we can't see the docs 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Artem Budnikov]

Hi Alex,

Sorry, I missed this message. There is still a lot of work on the docs. 
When is version 2.9 going to be released?


-Artem

On 22.07.2020 10:35, Alex Plehanov wrote:

Guys,

What about documentation for 2.9 release? Are we going to publish it on
readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
What about new edits? Should we still edit pages on readme.io or already
make changes in git repository?
Artem, could you please clarify the current documentation workflow?


пн, 20 июл. 2020 г. в 16:42, Artem Budnikov :


Denis,


How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the

website

repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?

Yes, I'll look into this this week. This shouldn't be very difficult.

-Artem

On 18.07.2020 00:43, Denis Magda wrote:

Worked out well on my end. Thanks for sending the update!

How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the

website

repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?

-
Denis


On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:27 AM Artem Budnikov <

a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>

wrote:


Hi everyone,

I've prepared the initial set of source files for the Ignite
documentation. If you are interested, you can take a look at
https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs

You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want to view the docs in
your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions. Some people had
troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction on how to
use jekyll docker image.

If you have any comments on the overall approach, please let me know.
The styles and content are still a work in progress, so please don't
report issues related to that.

-Artem

On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote:

+1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier contribution

for

docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit PR for

docs)

to the document page on site.

As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's products

in

separate repos, for example.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov <

a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>

wrote:


OK, let's give it a try.

The way I see it, the documentation source files will be located in

the

"/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, and

build

scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you know when
basic setup is ready.

-Artem

On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote:

I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same

repository

with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the

release

artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw documentation

ascii-doc

pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version needs to

reside

on

the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can create

tools

to do this in one click.

Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the opposite, and

they

suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if

committers

to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a review

later

if

needed.

-
Denis


On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov <

a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>

wrote:


Pavel,


I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
separate repo,

Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be

stored

in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to

date.

I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been

released

in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I

understand

that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but

it

looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think

about

a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this
inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it
through.


we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace)

from

the IDE.

I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a project. I used

to

do

it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because it's

more

convenient to me. We are looking at it from different perspectives.

I'm

trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech writers

rather

than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a

compromise:)

Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master,

there

is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
(probably?),
but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce

overhead?

Just think about it from my perspective. That creates a HUUUGE

overhead

for technical writers who work on the docs, and they are the ones

who

provide 90% of updates. I agree about the review process, and I'm

going

to think it over. But now it seems that we don't have to impose any
strict process that impedes preparation of the docs.

-Artem

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Alex Plehanov]

Guys,

What about documentation for 2.9 release? Are we going to publish it on
readme.io or publish it on ignite.apache.org?
What about new edits? Should we still edit pages on readme.io or already
make changes in git repository?
Artem, could you please clarify the current documentation workflow?


пн, 20 июл. 2020 г. в 16:42, Artem Budnikov :

> Denis,
>
> > How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the
> website
> > repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?
>
> Yes, I'll look into this this week. This shouldn't be very difficult.
>
> -Artem
>
> On 18.07.2020 00:43, Denis Magda wrote:
> > Worked out well on my end. Thanks for sending the update!
> >
> > How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the
> website
> > repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:27 AM Artem Budnikov <
> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I've prepared the initial set of source files for the Ignite
> >> documentation. If you are interested, you can take a look at
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs
> >>
> >> You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want to view the docs in
> >> your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions. Some people had
> >> troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction on how to
> >> use jekyll docker image.
> >>
> >> If you have any comments on the overall approach, please let me know.
> >> The styles and content are still a work in progress, so please don't
> >> report issues related to that.
> >>
> >> -Artem
> >>
> >> On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote:
> >>> +1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier contribution
> for
> >>> docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit PR for
> >> docs)
> >>> to the document page on site.
> >>>
> >>> As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's products
> in
> >>> separate repos, for example.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov <
> >> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  OK, let's give it a try.
> 
>  The way I see it, the documentation source files will be located in
> the
>  "/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, and
> build
>  scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you know when
>  basic setup is ready.
> 
>  -Artem
> 
>  On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote:
> > I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same
>  repository
> > with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the
> >> release
> > artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw documentation
>  ascii-doc
> > pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version needs to
> >> reside
>  on
> > the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can create
> >> tools
> > to do this in one click.
> >
> > Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the opposite, and
> they
> > suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if
> >> committers
> > to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a review
> later
>  if
> > needed.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov <
>  a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Pavel,
> >>
> >>> I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
> >>> separate repo,
> >> Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be
> >> stored
> >> in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to
> >> date.
> >> I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been
> >> released
> >> in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I
> understand
> >> that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but
> it
> >> looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think
> >> about
> >> a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this
> >> inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it
> >> through.
> >>
> >>> we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace)
> from
> >>> the IDE.
> >> I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a project. I used
> to
> >> do
> >> it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because it's
> >> more
> >> convenient to me. We are looking at it from different perspectives.
> >> I'm
> >> trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech writers
> rather
> >> than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a
> >> compromise:)
>  Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master,
> there
>  is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
>  Same should happen for the docs, 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Artem Budnikov]

Denis,


How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the website
repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?


Yes, I'll look into this this week. This shouldn't be very difficult.

-Artem

On 18.07.2020 00:43, Denis Magda wrote:

Worked out well on my end. Thanks for sending the update!

How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the website
repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?

-
Denis


On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:27 AM Artem Budnikov 
wrote:


Hi everyone,

I've prepared the initial set of source files for the Ignite
documentation. If you are interested, you can take a look at
https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs

You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want to view the docs in
your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions. Some people had
troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction on how to
use jekyll docker image.

If you have any comments on the overall approach, please let me know.
The styles and content are still a work in progress, so please don't
report issues related to that.

-Artem

On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote:

+1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier contribution for
docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit PR for

docs)

to the document page on site.

As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's products in
separate repos, for example.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov <

a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>

wrote:


OK, let's give it a try.

The way I see it, the documentation source files will be located in the
"/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, and build
scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you know when
basic setup is ready.

-Artem

On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote:

I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same

repository

with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the

release

artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw documentation

ascii-doc

pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version needs to

reside

on

the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can create

tools

to do this in one click.

Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the opposite, and they
suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if

committers

to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a review later

if

needed.

-
Denis


On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov <

a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>

wrote:


Pavel,


I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
separate repo,

Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be

stored

in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to

date.

I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been

released

in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I understand
that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but it
looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think

about

a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this
inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it
through.


we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
the IDE.

I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a project. I used to

do

it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because it's

more

convenient to me. We are looking at it from different perspectives.

I'm

trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech writers rather
than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a

compromise:)

Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
(probably?),
but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce

overhead?

Just think about it from my perspective. That creates a HUUUGE

overhead

for technical writers who work on the docs, and they are the ones who
provide 90% of updates. I agree about the review process, and I'm

going

to think it over. But now it seems that we don't have to impose any
strict process that impedes preparation of the docs.

-Artem


On 23.06.2020 15:35, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:

all your pros points work just as well for a separate repository

I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
separate repo,
we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
the IDE.


I am able to freely commit to master

Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
(probably?),
but we already have everything 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Denis Magda]

Worked out well on my end. Thanks for sending the update!

How about the next step of taking the HTML and committing it to the website
repository? Did you have a chance to think through this step?

-
Denis


On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:27 AM Artem Budnikov 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I've prepared the initial set of source files for the Ignite
> documentation. If you are interested, you can take a look at
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs
>
> You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want to view the docs in
> your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions. Some people had
> troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction on how to
> use jekyll docker image.
>
> If you have any comments on the overall approach, please let me know.
> The styles and content are still a work in progress, so please don't
> report issues related to that.
>
> -Artem
>
> On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote:
> > +1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier contribution for
> > docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit PR for
> docs)
> > to the document page on site.
> >
> > As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's products in
> > separate repos, for example.
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov <
> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> OK, let's give it a try.
> >>
> >> The way I see it, the documentation source files will be located in the
> >> "/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, and build
> >> scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you know when
> >> basic setup is ready.
> >>
> >> -Artem
> >>
> >> On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote:
> >>> I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same
> >> repository
> >>> with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the
> release
> >>> artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw documentation
> >> ascii-doc
> >>> pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version needs to
> reside
> >> on
> >>> the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can create
> tools
> >>> to do this in one click.
> >>>
> >>> Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the opposite, and they
> >>> suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if
> committers
> >>> to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a review later
> >> if
> >>> needed.
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov <
> >> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Pavel,
> 
> > I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
> > separate repo,
>  Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be
> stored
>  in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to
> date.
>  I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been
> released
>  in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I understand
>  that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but it
>  looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think
> about
>  a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this
>  inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it
>  through.
> 
> > we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
> > the IDE.
>  I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a project. I used to
> do
>  it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because it's
> more
>  convenient to me. We are looking at it from different perspectives.
> I'm
>  trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech writers rather
>  than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a
> compromise:)
> 
> >> Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
> >> is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
> >> Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
> >> But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
> >> (probably?),
> >> but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce
> >> overhead?
>  Just think about it from my perspective. That creates a HUUUGE
> overhead
>  for technical writers who work on the docs, and they are the ones who
>  provide 90% of updates. I agree about the review process, and I'm
> going
>  to think it over. But now it seems that we don't have to impose any
>  strict process that impedes preparation of the docs.
> 
>  -Artem
> 
> 
>  On 23.06.2020 15:35, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
> >> all your pros points work just as well for a separate repository
> > I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
> > separate repo,
> > we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
> > the IDE.
> >
> >> I am able to 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

I was able to eventually run it. The trick is to only install bundler with
apt, and not jekyll, once you install any other gems, they collide and it
will fail.

Looks OK. For some reason "Working with SQL" leads nowhere.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


пт, 17 июл. 2020 г. в 15:27, Artem Budnikov :

> Hi everyone,
>
> I've prepared the initial set of source files for the Ignite
> documentation. If you are interested, you can take a look at
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs
>
> You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want to view the docs in
> your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions. Some people had
> troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction on how to
> use jekyll docker image.
>
> If you have any comments on the overall approach, please let me know.
> The styles and content are still a work in progress, so please don't
> report issues related to that.
>
> -Artem
>
> On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote:
> > +1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier contribution for
> > docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit PR for
> docs)
> > to the document page on site.
> >
> > As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's products in
> > separate repos, for example.
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov <
> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> OK, let's give it a try.
> >>
> >> The way I see it, the documentation source files will be located in the
> >> "/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, and build
> >> scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you know when
> >> basic setup is ready.
> >>
> >> -Artem
> >>
> >> On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote:
> >>> I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same
> >> repository
> >>> with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the
> release
> >>> artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw documentation
> >> ascii-doc
> >>> pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version needs to
> reside
> >> on
> >>> the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can create
> tools
> >>> to do this in one click.
> >>>
> >>> Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the opposite, and they
> >>> suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if
> committers
> >>> to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a review later
> >> if
> >>> needed.
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov <
> >> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Pavel,
> 
> > I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
> > separate repo,
>  Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be
> stored
>  in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to
> date.
>  I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been
> released
>  in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I understand
>  that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but it
>  looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think
> about
>  a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this
>  inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it
>  through.
> 
> > we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
> > the IDE.
>  I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a project. I used to
> do
>  it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because it's
> more
>  convenient to me. We are looking at it from different perspectives.
> I'm
>  trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech writers rather
>  than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a
> compromise:)
> 
> >> Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
> >> is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
> >> Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
> >> But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
> >> (probably?),
> >> but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce
> >> overhead?
>  Just think about it from my perspective. That creates a HUUUGE
> overhead
>  for technical writers who work on the docs, and they are the ones who
>  provide 90% of updates. I agree about the review process, and I'm
> going
>  to think it over. But now it seems that we don't have to impose any
>  strict process that impedes preparation of the docs.
> 
>  -Artem
> 
> 
>  On 23.06.2020 15:35, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
> >> all your pros points work just as well for a separate repository
> > I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
> > separate repo,
> > we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
> 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Artem Budnikov]

Hi everyone,

I've prepared the initial set of source files for the Ignite 
documentation. If you are interested, you can take a look at 
https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs


You can run a local web-server (jekyll) if you want to view the docs in 
your browser. Refer to the README.adoc for instructions. Some people had 
troubles installing Jekyll locally, so I added an instruction on how to 
use jekyll docker image.


If you have any comments on the overall approach, please let me know. 
The styles and content are still a work in progress, so please don't 
report issues related to that.


-Artem

On 26.06.2020 01:54, Guru Stron wrote:

+1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier contribution for
docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit PR for docs)
to the document page on site.

As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's products in
separate repos, for example.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov 
wrote:


OK, let's give it a try.

The way I see it, the documentation source files will be located in the
"/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, and build
scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you know when
basic setup is ready.

-Artem

On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote:

I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same

repository

with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the release
artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw documentation

ascii-doc

pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version needs to reside

on

the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can create tools
to do this in one click.

Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the opposite, and they
suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if committers
to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a review later

if

needed.

-
Denis


On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov <

a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>

wrote:


Pavel,


I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
separate repo,

Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be stored
in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to date.
I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been released
in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I understand
that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but it
looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think about
a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this
inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it
through.


we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
the IDE.

I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a project. I used to do
it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because it's more
convenient to me. We are looking at it from different perspectives. I'm
trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech writers rather
than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a compromise:)


Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
(probably?),
but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce

overhead?

Just think about it from my perspective. That creates a HUUUGE overhead
for technical writers who work on the docs, and they are the ones who
provide 90% of updates. I agree about the review process, and I'm going
to think it over. But now it seems that we don't have to impose any
strict process that impedes preparation of the docs.

-Artem


On 23.06.2020 15:35, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:

all your pros points work just as well for a separate repository

I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
separate repo,
we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
the IDE.


I am able to freely commit to master

Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
(probably?),
but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce

overhead?

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:59 PM Artem Budnikov
mailto:a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>>

wrote:

  Pavel,

  As far as I can see, all your pros points work just as well for a
  separate repository (except for "everybody knows about it"). I

don't

  mind keeping the docs in Ignite repo as long as I am able to

freely

  commit to master. Will I be able to do that?

  -Artem

  On 23.06.2020 14:04, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
  > Ilya, Artem,
  >
  > "Separate repo just because we can't finish docs 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Guru Stron]

+1 for migrating docs to github. It will allow an easier contribution for
docs, I think. As a nice feature - adding an edit link (submit PR for docs)
to the document page on site.

As for keeping them separate - Microsoft keeps docs for it's products in
separate repos, for example.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Artem Budnikov 
wrote:

> OK, let's give it a try.
>
> The way I see it, the documentation source files will be located in the
> "/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, and build
> scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you know when
> basic setup is ready.
>
> -Artem
>
> On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote:
> > I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same
> repository
> > with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the release
> > artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw documentation
> ascii-doc
> > pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version needs to reside
> on
> > the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can create tools
> > to do this in one click.
> >
> > Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the opposite, and they
> > suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if committers
> > to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a review later
> if
> > needed.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov <
> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Pavel,
> >>
> >>> I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
> >>> separate repo,
> >> Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be stored
> >> in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to date.
> >> I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been released
> >> in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I understand
> >> that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but it
> >> looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think about
> >> a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this
> >> inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it
> >> through.
> >>
> >>> we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
> >>> the IDE.
> >> I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a project. I used to do
> >> it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because it's more
> >> convenient to me. We are looking at it from different perspectives. I'm
> >> trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech writers rather
> >> than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a compromise:)
> >>
>  Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
>  is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
>  Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
>  But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
>  (probably?),
>  but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce
> overhead?
> >> Just think about it from my perspective. That creates a HUUUGE overhead
> >> for technical writers who work on the docs, and they are the ones who
> >> provide 90% of updates. I agree about the review process, and I'm going
> >> to think it over. But now it seems that we don't have to impose any
> >> strict process that impedes preparation of the docs.
> >>
> >> -Artem
> >>
> >>
> >> On 23.06.2020 15:35, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
>  all your pros points work just as well for a separate repository
> >>> I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
> >>> separate repo,
> >>> we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
> >>> the IDE.
> >>>
>  I am able to freely commit to master
> >>> Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
> >>> is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
> >>> Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
> >>> But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
> >>> (probably?),
> >>> but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce
> overhead?
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:59 PM Artem Budnikov
> >>> mailto:a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >>>  Pavel,
> >>>
> >>>  As far as I can see, all your pros points work just as well for a
> >>>  separate repository (except for "everybody knows about it"). I
> don't
> >>>  mind keeping the docs in Ignite repo as long as I am able to
> freely
> >>>  commit to master. Will I be able to do that?
> >>>
> >>>  -Artem
> >>>
> >>>  On 23.06.2020 14:04, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
> >>>  > Ilya, Artem,
> >>>  >
> >>>  > "Separate repo just because we can't finish docs before release"
> >>>  > does not make sense to me. My proposal is:
> >>>  >
> >>>  > - Working version is in the master branch
> >>>  > - When a release branch is created, e.g. ignite-2.9, we create
> >>>  > 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Artem Budnikov]

OK, let's give it a try.

The way I see it, the documentation source files will be located in the 
"/docs" folder, including UI templates/styles, asciidoc files, and build 
scripts. I'll start experimenting with this and will let you know when 
basic setup is ready.


-Artem

On 23.06.2020 20:19, Denis Magda wrote:

I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same repository
with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the release
artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw documentation ascii-doc
pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version needs to reside on
the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can create tools
to do this in one click.

Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the opposite, and they
suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if committers
to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a review later if
needed.

-
Denis


On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov 
wrote:


Pavel,


I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
separate repo,

Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be stored
in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to date.
I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been released
in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I understand
that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but it
looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think about
a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this
inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it
through.


we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
the IDE.

I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a project. I used to do
it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because it's more
convenient to me. We are looking at it from different perspectives. I'm
trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech writers rather
than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a compromise:)


Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
(probably?),
but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce overhead?

Just think about it from my perspective. That creates a HUUUGE overhead
for technical writers who work on the docs, and they are the ones who
provide 90% of updates. I agree about the review process, and I'm going
to think it over. But now it seems that we don't have to impose any
strict process that impedes preparation of the docs.

-Artem


On 23.06.2020 15:35, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:

all your pros points work just as well for a separate repository

I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
separate repo,
we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
the IDE.


I am able to freely commit to master

Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
(probably?),
but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce overhead?

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:59 PM Artem Budnikov
mailto:a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>>

wrote:

 Pavel,

 As far as I can see, all your pros points work just as well for a
 separate repository (except for "everybody knows about it"). I don't
 mind keeping the docs in Ignite repo as long as I am able to freely
 commit to master. Will I be able to do that?

 -Artem

 On 23.06.2020 14:04, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
 > Ilya, Artem,
 >
 > "Separate repo just because we can't finish docs before release"
 > does not make sense to me. My proposal is:
 >
 > - Working version is in the master branch
 > - When a release branch is created, e.g. ignite-2.9, we create
 > ignite-2.9-docs and update it as long as we want.
 >
 > Pros (compared to a separate repo):
 > - Docs can be updated along with the code, same review process
 > - Visibility - everyone knows about main repo, docs are
 searchable together
 > with code in the IDE
 > - Code snippets can reference the actual code and we make sure
 they compile
 > - Code snippets can be tested on TC
 >
 > GridGain uses a separate repo for their docs, and it proved to
 be less than
 > optimal.
 > Especially when adding samples for new APIs which are not yet
 released.
 >
 >
 >
 > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:19 PM Artem Budnikov
 mailto:a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>>
 > wrote:
 >
 >> Pavel,
 >>
 >> Yes, I mean a separate repository. The reason is that
 documentation is
 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Denis Magda]

I believe that by keeping the documentation sources in the same repository
with the source code will help us to prepare and release all the release
artifacts at the same time. So, +1 for hosting raw documentation ascii-doc
pages in the main Ignite repo. However, the HTML version needs to reside on
the Ignite website, which is similar to the API docs. We can create tools
to do this in one click.

Post-reviews are not prohibited in Apache, quite the opposite, and they
suit the documentation contribution process better. It's ok if committers
to the documentation merge the changes first and ask for a review later if
needed.

-
Denis


On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:53 AM Artem Budnikov 
wrote:

> Pavel,
>
> > I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
> > separate repo,
> Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be stored
> in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to date.
> I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been released
> in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I understand
> that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but it
> looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think about
> a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this
> inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it
> through.
>
> > we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
> > the IDE.
> I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a project. I used to do
> it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because it's more
> convenient to me. We are looking at it from different perspectives. I'm
> trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech writers rather
> than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a compromise:)
>
> >> Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
> >> is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
> >> Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
> >> But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
> >> (probably?),
> >> but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce overhead?
> Just think about it from my perspective. That creates a HUUUGE overhead
> for technical writers who work on the docs, and they are the ones who
> provide 90% of updates. I agree about the review process, and I'm going
> to think it over. But now it seems that we don't have to impose any
> strict process that impedes preparation of the docs.
>
> -Artem
>
>
> On 23.06.2020 15:35, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
> > > all your pros points work just as well for a separate repository
> > I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a
> > separate repo,
> > we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from
> > the IDE.
> >
> > > I am able to freely commit to master
> > Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there
> > is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
> > Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
> > But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management
> > (probably?),
> > but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce overhead?
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:59 PM Artem Budnikov
> > mailto:a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Pavel,
> >
> > As far as I can see, all your pros points work just as well for a
> > separate repository (except for "everybody knows about it"). I don't
> > mind keeping the docs in Ignite repo as long as I am able to freely
> > commit to master. Will I be able to do that?
> >
> > -Artem
> >
> > On 23.06.2020 14:04, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
> > > Ilya, Artem,
> > >
> > > "Separate repo just because we can't finish docs before release"
> > > does not make sense to me. My proposal is:
> > >
> > > - Working version is in the master branch
> > > - When a release branch is created, e.g. ignite-2.9, we create
> > > ignite-2.9-docs and update it as long as we want.
> > >
> > > Pros (compared to a separate repo):
> > > - Docs can be updated along with the code, same review process
> > > - Visibility - everyone knows about main repo, docs are
> > searchable together
> > > with code in the IDE
> > > - Code snippets can reference the actual code and we make sure
> > they compile
> > > - Code snippets can be tested on TC
> > >
> > > GridGain uses a separate repo for their docs, and it proved to
> > be less than
> > > optimal.
> > > Especially when adding samples for new APIs which are not yet
> > released.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:19 PM Artem Budnikov
> > mailto:a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Pavel,
> > >>
> > >> Yes, I mean a separate repository. The reason is that
> > documentation is
> > >> usually updated after the 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Nikolay Izhikov]

+1 to keep docs and sources together.
-1 to keep docs in external repository.

> 23 июня 2020 г., в 16:47, Artem Budnikov  
> написал(а):
> 
> Pavel,
> 
>> I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a separate 
>> repo,
> Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be stored in 
> the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to date. I 
> update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been released in the 
> GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I understand that you don't 
> want to do extra work when adding code samples, but it looks like just an 
> inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think about a solution that will be 
> comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this inconvenience can be solved 
> technically. But I need time to think it through.
> 
>> we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from the IDE.
> I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a project. I used to do it 
> in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because it's more 
> convenient to me. We are looking at it from different perspectives. I'm 
> trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech writers rather than 
> developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a compromise:)
> 
>>> Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there is a 
>>> process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
>>> Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
>>> But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management (probably?),
>>> but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce overhead?
> Just think about it from my perspective. That creates a HUUUGE overhead for 
> technical writers who work on the docs, and they are the ones who provide 90% 
> of updates. I agree about the review process, and I'm going to think it over. 
> But now it seems that we don't have to impose any strict process that impedes 
> preparation of the docs.
> 
> -Artem
> 
> 
> On 23.06.2020 15:35, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
>> > all your pros points work just as well for a separate repository
>> I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a separate 
>> repo,
>> we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from the IDE.
>> 
>> > I am able to freely commit to master
>> Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there is a 
>> process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.
>> Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
>> But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management (probably?),
>> but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce overhead?
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:59 PM Artem Budnikov > > wrote:
>> 
>>Pavel,
>> 
>>As far as I can see, all your pros points work just as well for a
>>separate repository (except for "everybody knows about it"). I don't
>>mind keeping the docs in Ignite repo as long as I am able to freely
>>commit to master. Will I be able to do that?
>> 
>>-Artem
>> 
>>On 23.06.2020 14:04, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
>>> Ilya, Artem,
>>>
>>> "Separate repo just because we can't finish docs before release"
>>> does not make sense to me. My proposal is:
>>>
>>> - Working version is in the master branch
>>> - When a release branch is created, e.g. ignite-2.9, we create
>>> ignite-2.9-docs and update it as long as we want.
>>>
>>> Pros (compared to a separate repo):
>>> - Docs can be updated along with the code, same review process
>>> - Visibility - everyone knows about main repo, docs are
>>searchable together
>>> with code in the IDE
>>> - Code snippets can reference the actual code and we make sure
>>they compile
>>> - Code snippets can be tested on TC
>>>
>>> GridGain uses a separate repo for their docs, and it proved to
>>be less than
>>> optimal.
>>> Especially when adding samples for new APIs which are not yet
>>released.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:19 PM Artem Budnikov
>>mailto:a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pavel,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I mean a separate repository. The reason is that
>>documentation is
>>>> usually updated after the product version is released. As Ilya
>>pointed
>>>> out, keeping the docs in the main Ignite repository would entail
>>>> completing the docs before the release date, which is not
>>possible under
>>>> current circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> Ilya,
>>>>
>>>> You can look at your company's documentation for a working
>>prototype
>>>> turned production-ready approach. The approach has been tested
>>for a
>>>> while and proved to be successful, at least with respect to our
>>goals here.
>>>>
>>>> -Artem
>>>>
>>>> On 23.06.2020 12:48, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>
>> 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Artem Budnikov]

Pavel,

I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a 
separate repo,
Snippets are kept together with the docs, they /don't need/ to be stored 
in the main repo, although they can. They are compilable and up to date. 
I update the docs and API samples for features that hasn't been released 
in the GridGain docs and never thought it was a problem. I understand 
that you don't want to do extra work when adding code samples, but it 
looks like just an inconvenience. Let me suggest this: Let's think about 
a solution that will be comfortable for you, I'm pretty sure this 
inconvenience can be solved technically. But I need time to think it 
through.


we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from 
the IDE.
I think you can add the docs repo to your IDE as a project. I used to do 
it in the beginning but then switched to Sublime Text, because it's more 
convenient to me. We are looking at it from different perspectives. I'm 
trying to create a process that is comfortable for tech writers rather 
than developers. And everybody has to accept some kind of a compromise:)


Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there 
is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.

Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management 
(probably?),

but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce overhead?
Just think about it from my perspective. That creates a HUUUGE overhead 
for technical writers who work on the docs, and they are the ones who 
provide 90% of updates. I agree about the review process, and I'm going 
to think it over. But now it seems that we don't have to impose any 
strict process that impedes preparation of the docs.


-Artem


On 23.06.2020 15:35, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:

> all your pros points work just as well for a separate repository
I don't think so: we can't add snippets pointing to new APIs from a 
separate repo,
we can't see the docs when doing global search (and/or replace) from 
the IDE.


> I am able to freely commit to master
Well, no one is able to "freely" commit code to Apache master, there 
is a process to follow - CI, reviews, etc.

Same should happen for the docs, separate repo or not.
But a separate repo will require separate ownership/management 
(probably?),

but we already have everything in the main repo, why introduce overhead?

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:59 PM Artem Budnikov 
mailto:a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Pavel,

As far as I can see, all your pros points work just as well for a
separate repository (except for "everybody knows about it"). I don't
mind keeping the docs in Ignite repo as long as I am able to freely
commit to master. Will I be able to do that?

-Artem

On 23.06.2020 14:04, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
> Ilya, Artem,
>
> "Separate repo just because we can't finish docs before release"
> does not make sense to me. My proposal is:
>
> - Working version is in the master branch
> - When a release branch is created, e.g. ignite-2.9, we create
> ignite-2.9-docs and update it as long as we want.
>
> Pros (compared to a separate repo):
> - Docs can be updated along with the code, same review process
> - Visibility - everyone knows about main repo, docs are
searchable together
> with code in the IDE
> - Code snippets can reference the actual code and we make sure
they compile
> - Code snippets can be tested on TC
>
> GridGain uses a separate repo for their docs, and it proved to
be less than
> optimal.
> Especially when adding samples for new APIs which are not yet
released.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:19 PM Artem Budnikov
mailto:a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> Pavel,
>>
>> Yes, I mean a separate repository. The reason is that
documentation is
>> usually updated after the product version is released. As Ilya
pointed
>> out, keeping the docs in the main Ignite repository would entail
>> completing the docs before the release date, which is not
possible under
>> current circumstances.
>>
>> Ilya,
>>
>> You can look at your company's documentation for a working
prototype
>> turned production-ready approach. The approach has been tested
for a
>> while and proved to be successful, at least with respect to our
goals here.
>>
>> -Artem
>>
>> On 23.06.2020 12:48, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> I'm not really sold on the github version yet, I would like to
see a
>>> prototype of such documentation before deciding, so for me it'w
>>> 0
>>>
>>> Pavel, we don't have enough discipline to make sure that all
>> documentation
>>> is ready at the time of release, and we may need to add
notices here and
>>> there after a release is already 

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Artem Budnikov]

Pavel,

As far as I can see, all your pros points work just as well for a 
separate repository (except for "everybody knows about it"). I don't 
mind keeping the docs in Ignite repo as long as I am able to freely 
commit to master. Will I be able to do that?


-Artem

On 23.06.2020 14:04, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:

Ilya, Artem,

"Separate repo just because we can't finish docs before release"
does not make sense to me. My proposal is:

- Working version is in the master branch
- When a release branch is created, e.g. ignite-2.9, we create
ignite-2.9-docs and update it as long as we want.

Pros (compared to a separate repo):
- Docs can be updated along with the code, same review process
- Visibility - everyone knows about main repo, docs are searchable together
with code in the IDE
- Code snippets can reference the actual code and we make sure they compile
- Code snippets can be tested on TC

GridGain uses a separate repo for their docs, and it proved to be less than
optimal.
Especially when adding samples for new APIs which are not yet released.



On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:19 PM Artem Budnikov 
wrote:


Pavel,

Yes, I mean a separate repository. The reason is that documentation is
usually updated after the product version is released. As Ilya pointed
out, keeping the docs in the main Ignite repository would entail
completing the docs before the release date, which is not possible under
current circumstances.

Ilya,

You can look at your company's documentation for a working prototype
turned production-ready approach. The approach has been tested for a
while and proved to be successful, at least with respect to our goals here.

-Artem

On 23.06.2020 12:48, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:

Hello!

I'm not really sold on the github version yet, I would like to see a
prototype of such documentation before deciding, so for me it'w
0

Pavel, we don't have enough discipline to make sure that all

documentation

is ready at the time of release, and we may need to add notices here and
there after a release is already out. This means, separate git

repository,

or at least separate git tag on that repository, is needed.

Regards,

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

Ilya, Artem,

"Separate repo just because we can't finish docs before release"
does not make sense to me. My proposal is:

- Working version is in the master branch
- When a release branch is created, e.g. ignite-2.9, we create
ignite-2.9-docs and update it as long as we want.

Pros (compared to a separate repo):
- Docs can be updated along with the code, same review process
- Visibility - everyone knows about main repo, docs are searchable together
with code in the IDE
- Code snippets can reference the actual code and we make sure they compile
- Code snippets can be tested on TC

GridGain uses a separate repo for their docs, and it proved to be less than
optimal.
Especially when adding samples for new APIs which are not yet released.



On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:19 PM Artem Budnikov 
wrote:

> Pavel,
>
> Yes, I mean a separate repository. The reason is that documentation is
> usually updated after the product version is released. As Ilya pointed
> out, keeping the docs in the main Ignite repository would entail
> completing the docs before the release date, which is not possible under
> current circumstances.
>
> Ilya,
>
> You can look at your company's documentation for a working prototype
> turned production-ready approach. The approach has been tested for a
> while and proved to be successful, at least with respect to our goals here.
>
> -Artem
>
> On 23.06.2020 12:48, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I'm not really sold on the github version yet, I would like to see a
> > prototype of such documentation before deciding, so for me it'w
> > 0
> >
> > Pavel, we don't have enough discipline to make sure that all
> documentation
> > is ready at the time of release, and we may need to add notices here and
> > there after a release is already out. This means, separate git
> repository,
> > or at least separate git tag on that repository, is needed.
> >
> > Regards,
>

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Artem Budnikov]

Pavel,

Yes, I mean a separate repository. The reason is that documentation is 
usually updated after the product version is released. As Ilya pointed 
out, keeping the docs in the main Ignite repository would entail 
completing the docs before the release date, which is not possible under 
current circumstances.


Ilya,

You can look at your company's documentation for a working prototype 
turned production-ready approach. The approach has been tested for a 
while and proved to be successful, at least with respect to our goals here.


-Artem

On 23.06.2020 12:48, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:

Hello!

I'm not really sold on the github version yet, I would like to see a
prototype of such documentation before deciding, so for me it'w
0

Pavel, we don't have enough discipline to make sure that all documentation
is ready at the time of release, and we may need to add notices here and
there after a release is already out. This means, separate git repository,
or at least separate git tag on that repository, is needed.

Regards,

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

I'm not really sold on the github version yet, I would like to see a
prototype of such documentation before deciding, so for me it'w
0

Pavel, we don't have enough discipline to make sure that all documentation
is ready at the time of release, and we may need to add notices here and
there after a release is already out. This means, separate git repository,
or at least separate git tag on that repository, is needed.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


вт, 23 июн. 2020 г. в 12:15, Pavel Tupitsyn :

> +1
>
> > stored in a github repository
> Do you mean a separate repository here?
> I think we should use the main Ignite repo for documentation.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 10:21 AM Nikita Amelchev 
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > For now it's unclear how to add new pages to the site. I hope it'll be
> > a clear process.
> >
> > вт, 23 июн. 2020 г. в 10:06, Alexey Zinoviev :
> > >
> > > I'd like this approach, it's easier for contributors to suggest edits.
> > > +1
> > >
> > > вт, 23 июн. 2020 г. в 10:03, Nikolay Izhikov :
> > >
> > > > +1.
> > > >
> > > > > 23 июня 2020 г., в 10:02, Artem Budnikov <
> > a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> > > > написал(а):
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to return to the discussion about migrating the Ignite
> > > > documentation from readme.io to github. The idea emerged long time
> ago
> > > > [1] but hasn't been implemented. I think now is the time to make it
> > happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here are the technical details of the proposed solution:
> > > > >
> > > > > * docs are written in asciidoc format and stored in a github
> > repository
> > > > > * jekyll is used to generate HTML pages out of the adoc files
> > > > > * HTML pages are published on ignite.apache.org in the
> documentation
> > > > >   section
> > > > >
> > > > > This approach is very flexible and allows us to implement any
> feature
> > > > that we need (as opposed to readme.io, which is very limited).
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, as part of this plan, it makes sense to unite the
> documentation
> > > > for different platforms (java, .NET, c++).
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm interested in what you have to say about this. Please share
> your
> > > > thoughts.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Artem
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]:
> > > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Move-documentation-from-readme-io-to-GitHub-pages-td16409.html
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes,
> > Amelchev Nikita
> >
>

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

+1

> stored in a github repository
Do you mean a separate repository here?
I think we should use the main Ignite repo for documentation.



On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 10:21 AM Nikita Amelchev 
wrote:

> +1
> For now it's unclear how to add new pages to the site. I hope it'll be
> a clear process.
>
> вт, 23 июн. 2020 г. в 10:06, Alexey Zinoviev :
> >
> > I'd like this approach, it's easier for contributors to suggest edits.
> > +1
> >
> > вт, 23 июн. 2020 г. в 10:03, Nikolay Izhikov :
> >
> > > +1.
> > >
> > > > 23 июня 2020 г., в 10:02, Artem Budnikov <
> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>
> > > написал(а):
> > > >
> > > > Hello Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to return to the discussion about migrating the Ignite
> > > documentation from readme.io to github. The idea emerged long time ago
> > > [1] but hasn't been implemented. I think now is the time to make it
> happen.
> > > >
> > > > Here are the technical details of the proposed solution:
> > > >
> > > > * docs are written in asciidoc format and stored in a github
> repository
> > > > * jekyll is used to generate HTML pages out of the adoc files
> > > > * HTML pages are published on ignite.apache.org in the documentation
> > > >   section
> > > >
> > > > This approach is very flexible and allows us to implement any feature
> > > that we need (as opposed to readme.io, which is very limited).
> > > >
> > > > Also, as part of this plan, it makes sense to unite the documentation
> > > for different platforms (java, .NET, c++).
> > > >
> > > > I'm interested in what you have to say about this. Please share your
> > > thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > -Artem
> > > >
> > > > [1]:
> > >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Move-documentation-from-readme-io-to-GitHub-pages-td16409.html
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Amelchev Nikita
>

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Nikita Amelchev]

+1
For now it's unclear how to add new pages to the site. I hope it'll be
a clear process.

вт, 23 июн. 2020 г. в 10:06, Alexey Zinoviev :
>
> I'd like this approach, it's easier for contributors to suggest edits.
> +1
>
> вт, 23 июн. 2020 г. в 10:03, Nikolay Izhikov :
>
> > +1.
> >
> > > 23 июня 2020 г., в 10:02, Artem Budnikov 
> > написал(а):
> > >
> > > Hello Igniters,
> > >
> > > I'd like to return to the discussion about migrating the Ignite
> > documentation from readme.io to github. The idea emerged long time ago
> > [1] but hasn't been implemented. I think now is the time to make it happen.
> > >
> > > Here are the technical details of the proposed solution:
> > >
> > > * docs are written in asciidoc format and stored in a github repository
> > > * jekyll is used to generate HTML pages out of the adoc files
> > > * HTML pages are published on ignite.apache.org in the documentation
> > >   section
> > >
> > > This approach is very flexible and allows us to implement any feature
> > that we need (as opposed to readme.io, which is very limited).
> > >
> > > Also, as part of this plan, it makes sense to unite the documentation
> > for different platforms (java, .NET, c++).
> > >
> > > I'm interested in what you have to say about this. Please share your
> > thoughts.
> > >
> > > -Artem
> > >
> > > [1]:
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Move-documentation-from-readme-io-to-GitHub-pages-td16409.html
> > >
> >
> >



-- 
Best wishes,
Amelchev Nikita

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Alexey Zinoviev]

I'd like this approach, it's easier for contributors to suggest edits.
+1

вт, 23 июн. 2020 г. в 10:03, Nikolay Izhikov :

> +1.
>
> > 23 июня 2020 г., в 10:02, Artem Budnikov 
> написал(а):
> >
> > Hello Igniters,
> >
> > I'd like to return to the discussion about migrating the Ignite
> documentation from readme.io to github. The idea emerged long time ago
> [1] but hasn't been implemented. I think now is the time to make it happen.
> >
> > Here are the technical details of the proposed solution:
> >
> > * docs are written in asciidoc format and stored in a github repository
> > * jekyll is used to generate HTML pages out of the adoc files
> > * HTML pages are published on ignite.apache.org in the documentation
> >   section
> >
> > This approach is very flexible and allows us to implement any feature
> that we need (as opposed to readme.io, which is very limited).
> >
> > Also, as part of this plan, it makes sense to unite the documentation
> for different platforms (java, .NET, c++).
> >
> > I'm interested in what you have to say about this. Please share your
> thoughts.
> >
> > -Artem
> >
> > [1]:
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Move-documentation-from-readme-io-to-GitHub-pages-td16409.html
> >
>
>

Re: Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Nikolay Izhikov]

+1.

> 23 июня 2020 г., в 10:02, Artem Budnikov  
> написал(а):
> 
> Hello Igniters,
> 
> I'd like to return to the discussion about migrating the Ignite documentation 
> from readme.io to github. The idea emerged long time ago [1] but hasn't been 
> implemented. I think now is the time to make it happen.
> 
> Here are the technical details of the proposed solution:
> 
> * docs are written in asciidoc format and stored in a github repository
> * jekyll is used to generate HTML pages out of the adoc files
> * HTML pages are published on ignite.apache.org in the documentation
>   section
> 
> This approach is very flexible and allows us to implement any feature that we 
> need (as opposed to readme.io, which is very limited).
> 
> Also, as part of this plan, it makes sense to unite the documentation for 
> different platforms (java, .NET, c++).
> 
> I'm interested in what you have to say about this. Please share your thoughts.
> 
> -Artem
> 
> [1]: 
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Move-documentation-from-readme-io-to-GitHub-pages-td16409.html
> 

Moving Ignite documentation to github

[Artem Budnikov]

Hello Igniters,

I'd like to return to the discussion about migrating the Ignite 
documentation from readme.io to github. The idea emerged long time ago 
[1] but hasn't been implemented. I think now is the time to make it happen.


Here are the technical details of the proposed solution:

 * docs are written in asciidoc format and stored in a github repository
 * jekyll is used to generate HTML pages out of the adoc files
 * HTML pages are published on ignite.apache.org in the documentation
   section

This approach is very flexible and allows us to implement any feature 
that we need (as opposed to readme.io, which is very limited).


Also, as part of this plan, it makes sense to unite the documentation 
for different platforms (java, .NET, c++).


I'm interested in what you have to say about this. Please share your 
thoughts.


-Artem

[1]: 
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Move-documentation-from-readme-io-to-GitHub-pages-td16409.html