Re: Draft Proposal for overall website direction
Sorry for top posting… I might have a slightly different direction to look in. Thinking about some of the comments along the lines of “jbake is good enough” I’ve realized that, for me, the main benefit Antora brings over anything else I’m aware of is that it helps you organize your content in a sensible yet very flexible way. I’d like to draw an analogy to the ant-vs.-maven controversy, if anyone remembers that far back :-) They are both build tools that take your java source and use the java compiler to create class files. Aren’t they just the same then? Well, would you suggest taking TomEE to an ant-based build? Perhaps not…. maven suggests a project organization that makes good sense for most java projects, and does about 70-99% of the organizational work for you. Perhaps similarly, Antora more or less enforces a simple sensible documentation organization, and provides a simple consistent way to get a nice looking website out with almost no configuration needed. This documentation project is much larger than I anticipated at first, and the hard part is finding all the content and figuring out a plausible organization. I think I’ve found pretty much everything, and have a preliminary organization. Admittedly I’m strongly biased in favor of Antora, but I would never have considered the project of even collecting all the existing content without the organization Antora provides. That said, I’m fairly amazed at how much of Antora’s functionality David has compressed into the tomcat-site-generator. However, it’s incomplete, undocumented, unmaintained, and buggy. I suggest that maintaining something like that is not what anyone involved in TomEE wants to be spending their time on. One possible other factor to consider is that my interest here is primarily in finding out what it’s like to migrate a moderately complex disorganized website to Antora, and investigating what extensions or outside work (such as javadoc) are needed. I’m really not interested in participating in other solutions. I expect to continue until I get something I’m satisfied with or I get tired. I think I already have pretty much all the content as Asciidoctor, and I hope to get it to idiomatic error-free asciidoc. If the community wants a non-Antora solution it should be moderately straightforward to de-Antora-ize the content, but it’s not something I’m likely to be participating in. In partial answer to David’s last question, I think one reason for the doc decay was allowing too many choices, so that it quickly became too hard to figure out how to do anything. Thanks David Jencks > On Feb 18, 2020, at 1:27 PM, David Blevins wrote: > >> On Feb 18, 2020, at 12:57 PM, Guillermo García wrote: >> >> I don't want to open a difficult debate about which technology is the best, >> but in the worst case is it possible to call a committee for a votation? >> How the TomEE committers team defines which direction to take in these >> cases? > > We definitely still need much more discussion and participation to hammer out > all the topics on this. In ideal situations you can find agreement on parts > and then reduce the scope of what's being discussed so where people disagree > is more clear. That often allows it to be more easily addressed. > > When you've done a good job on all that and everyone feels they understand > what's being discussed and are all "talked out", it's a definite sign a vote > is the only remaining way to move forward and you hold one. > > Some projects are pretty strict about whose votes count. Some say just votes > from the PMC members count (small group). Some say just the committers > (slightly larger). We've typically been pretty open and say everyone's votes > count; it's hard to grow a project while telling people who are your future > growth, "your vote doesn't count." :) > > On this topic specifically, I also agree with David on several things and I > definitely don't feel "talked out", so at least for my perspective, we're > aways away from voting on anything. > > More participation will definitely help the discussion along. > > There's an entire facet of this discussion we probably should be talking > about which is how to deal with our heaps of content in various states of > health; how did it get unhealthy, how do we deal with it, how do we prevent > it, how do we encourage more contribution to main docs. > > I think any tool in the hands of someone willing to lead an effort to improve > our main docs is a good tool. > > > -David > > > > > > > >
Re: Draft Proposal for overall website direction
> On Feb 18, 2020, at 12:57 PM, Guillermo García wrote: > > I don't want to open a difficult debate about which technology is the best, > but in the worst case is it possible to call a committee for a votation? > How the TomEE committers team defines which direction to take in these > cases? We definitely still need much more discussion and participation to hammer out all the topics on this. In ideal situations you can find agreement on parts and then reduce the scope of what's being discussed so where people disagree is more clear. That often allows it to be more easily addressed. When you've done a good job on all that and everyone feels they understand what's being discussed and are all "talked out", it's a definite sign a vote is the only remaining way to move forward and you hold one. Some projects are pretty strict about whose votes count. Some say just votes from the PMC members count (small group). Some say just the committers (slightly larger). We've typically been pretty open and say everyone's votes count; it's hard to grow a project while telling people who are your future growth, "your vote doesn't count." :) On this topic specifically, I also agree with David on several things and I definitely don't feel "talked out", so at least for my perspective, we're aways away from voting on anything. More participation will definitely help the discussion along. There's an entire facet of this discussion we probably should be talking about which is how to deal with our heaps of content in various states of health; how did it get unhealthy, how do we deal with it, how do we prevent it, how do we encourage more contribution to main docs. I think any tool in the hands of someone willing to lead an effort to improve our main docs is a good tool. -David
Re: Draft Proposal for overall website direction
Hi Hilberto,
I have been following some David's ideas and I agree with him in the
direction of using Antora. I consider Antora in a mature state to let us
manage the website efficiently. And I am not worried about learning a new
tool, even if it is jbake.
I don't want to open a difficult debate about which technology is the best,
but in the worst case is it possible to call a committee for a votation?
How the TomEE committers team defines which direction to take in these
cases?
Best,
Guillermo
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 2:49 PM David Jencks wrote:
> Antora already supports “edit this page". Some pages in the current site
> have a button for it, but I don’t know if it works.
>
> David Jencks
>
> > On Feb 18, 2020, at 10:43 AM, gilbertoca wrote:
> >
> > I would stick with jvm tool (jbake) instead of add/learn one
> > more(node-antora). Specially I would to suggest we adopt what our Apache
> > Netbeans friends have done with jbake (jbake.org) in thier site
> > (https://netbeans.apache.org/). There, in each page you have a button
> ("See
> > this page in GitHub") where you/anyone can edit the original asciidoc
> file
> > and make PR for contribution.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Gilberto
> >
> >
> > David Blevins-2 wrote
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I have a draft of something we can kick around for our website overall.
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/tomee-site-generator/blob/master/WEBSITE-2020.adoc
> >>
> >> This took 3 hours to write so apologies for the size. Much of this is
> >> experience from all the efforts of the past, some imagined improvements
> to
> >> successful parts of the site, while paving the way for the Antora work.
> >>
> >> Food on the table, cranky wife! Must go!
> >>
> >> Sorry for the short email! :)
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Blevins
> >> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> >> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from:
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/TomEE-Dev-f982480.html
>
>
Re: Draft Proposal for overall website direction
Everyone should follow Gilberto's example and jump into the conversation.
It's common on open source for two people to race out ahead of everyone. The
train looks like it's moving fast and jumping in looks dangerous, so people get
intimidated and that compounds. Trains that go too fast often derail.
Jumping even with questions is a huge contribution. You don't need to jump in
with an expert opinion. Just jump :)
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Feb 18, 2020, at 10:43 AM, gilbertoca wrote:
>
> I would stick with jvm tool (jbake) instead of add/learn one
> more(node-antora). Specially I would to suggest we adopt what our Apache
> Netbeans friends have done with jbake (jbake.org) in thier site
> (https://netbeans.apache.org/). There, in each page you have a button ("See
> this page in GitHub") where you/anyone can edit the original asciidoc file
> and make PR for contribution.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gilberto
>
>
> David Blevins-2 wrote
>> All,
>>
>> I have a draft of something we can kick around for our website overall.
>>
>> -
>> https://github.com/apache/tomee-site-generator/blob/master/WEBSITE-2020.adoc
>>
>> This took 3 hours to write so apologies for the size. Much of this is
>> experience from all the efforts of the past, some imagined improvements to
>> successful parts of the site, while paving the way for the Antora work.
>>
>> Food on the table, cranky wife! Must go!
>>
>> Sorry for the short email! :)
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Blevins
>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/TomEE-Dev-f982480.html
Re: Docker images for 8.0.0
> Being I am newer to the project, I am assuming that microprofile was introduced in 7.1. Can someone confirm that? If so, I need to remove it from the images. That's correct. Thanks Rod. Jon On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 8:21 PM Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod) < jenki...@nationwide.com> wrote: > While working with the Docker-hub folks, they pointed out that I have a > Dockerfile for microprofile for 7.0.7. However, I do not see microprofile > files listed here: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/tomee/tomee-7.0.7/ > > Being I am newer to the project, I am assuming that microprofile was > introduced in 7.1. Can someone confirm that? If so, I need to remove it > from the images. > > Thanks, > Rod. > > > On 2/14/20, 11:06 AM, "Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod)" > wrote: > > Nationwide Information Security Warning: This is an external email. Do > not click on links or open attachments unless you trust the sender. > > -- > > Agree with the comments and fixed. > > Thank you for approving me as a contributor. > > Rod. > > > On 2/14/20, 5:34 AM, "Jonathan Gallimore" < > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nationwide Information Security Warning: This is an external > email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you trust the > sender. > > -- > > Rod > > Are you able to handle the feedback on this PR, specifically > around image > tags? https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/7471 > > Thanks > > Jon > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:48 PM Jonathan Gallimore < > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Rod! > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:06 PM Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod) < > > jenki...@nationwide.com> wrote: > > > >> FYI to all > >> > >> Jon merged the pull request this morning. I created a Pull > Request to > >> the official images. It can be found here: > >> https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/7471 > >> > >> I should note that the new versions are: 7.0.6, 7.1.2, 8.0.1 > (I am not > >> sure why this thread says 8.0.0) > >> > >> I would expect the new versions to be live in a couple of days. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Rod. > >> > >> > >> On 2/5/20, 3:24 PM, "Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod)" < > jenki...@nationwide.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Nationwide Information Security Warning: This is an > external email. > >> Do not click on links or open attachments unless you trust the > sender. > >> > >> > -- > >> > >> Jon, > >> > >> Is there anything I need to do to get the Docker images > released? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Rod. > >> > >> > >> On 1/23/20, 12:58 PM, "Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod)" < > >> jenki...@nationwide.com> wrote: > >> > >> Nationwide Information Security Warning: This is an > external > >> email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you > trust the > >> sender. > >> > >> > -- > >> > >> For now, I just made sure they all built successfully. > They did > >> and you can see my latest on the pull request. > >> > >> For the future, I am undecided. Maybe that it is just > enough > >> that TomEE is well tested before we get to Docker. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Rod. > >> > >> > >> On 1/22/20, 3:05 PM, "Jonathan Gallimore" < > >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Nationwide Information Security Warning: This is an > external > >> email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you > trust the > >> sender. > >> > >> > -- > >> > >> How far do you want to go with testing? Personally > I think a > >> quick > >> automated smoke test would be perfect. The > distributions are > >> already tested > >> in quite a lot of depth in the build, so I'm not > sure we need > >> to repeat > >> that in Docker. That's a development view on the > problem, I'm > >> quite > >> interested in what consumers of the Dockers would > expect. > >> > >> Jon > >> >
Re: Docker images for 8.0.0
While working with the Docker-hub folks, they pointed out that I have a Dockerfile for microprofile for 7.0.7. However, I do not see microprofile files listed here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/tomee/tomee-7.0.7/ Being I am newer to the project, I am assuming that microprofile was introduced in 7.1. Can someone confirm that? If so, I need to remove it from the images. Thanks, Rod. On 2/14/20, 11:06 AM, "Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod)" wrote: Nationwide Information Security Warning: This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you trust the sender. -- Agree with the comments and fixed. Thank you for approving me as a contributor. Rod. On 2/14/20, 5:34 AM, "Jonathan Gallimore" wrote: Nationwide Information Security Warning: This is an external email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you trust the sender. -- Rod Are you able to handle the feedback on this PR, specifically around image tags? https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/7471 Thanks Jon On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:48 PM Jonathan Gallimore < jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Rod! > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:06 PM Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod) < > jenki...@nationwide.com> wrote: > >> FYI to all >> >> Jon merged the pull request this morning. I created a Pull Request to >> the official images. It can be found here: >> https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/7471 >> >> I should note that the new versions are: 7.0.6, 7.1.2, 8.0.1 (I am not >> sure why this thread says 8.0.0) >> >> I would expect the new versions to be live in a couple of days. >> >> Thanks, >> Rod. >> >> >> On 2/5/20, 3:24 PM, "Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod)" >> wrote: >> >> Nationwide Information Security Warning: This is an external email. >> Do not click on links or open attachments unless you trust the sender. >> >> -- >> >> Jon, >> >> Is there anything I need to do to get the Docker images released? >> >> Thanks, >> Rod. >> >> >> On 1/23/20, 12:58 PM, "Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod)" < >> jenki...@nationwide.com> wrote: >> >> Nationwide Information Security Warning: This is an external >> email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you trust the >> sender. >> >> -- >> >> For now, I just made sure they all built successfully. They did >> and you can see my latest on the pull request. >> >> For the future, I am undecided. Maybe that it is just enough >> that TomEE is well tested before we get to Docker. >> >> Thanks, >> Rod. >> >> >> On 1/22/20, 3:05 PM, "Jonathan Gallimore" < >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Nationwide Information Security Warning: This is an external >> email. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you trust the >> sender. >> >> -- >> >> How far do you want to go with testing? Personally I think a >> quick >> automated smoke test would be perfect. The distributions are >> already tested >> in quite a lot of depth in the build, so I'm not sure we need >> to repeat >> that in Docker. That's a development view on the problem, I'm >> quite >> interested in what consumers of the Dockers would expect. >> >> Jon >> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:22 PM Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod) < >> jenki...@nationwide.com> wrote: >> >> > Jon, >> > >> > I was able to get it to build, thank you!!! >> > >> > This leads me to a larger concern: Testing of the docker >> images. I am >> > open to ideas on how to test these images I create. >> Currently, I spot
Re: Draft Proposal for overall website direction
Antora already supports “edit this page". Some pages in the current site have a
button for it, but I don’t know if it works.
David Jencks
> On Feb 18, 2020, at 10:43 AM, gilbertoca wrote:
>
> I would stick with jvm tool (jbake) instead of add/learn one
> more(node-antora). Specially I would to suggest we adopt what our Apache
> Netbeans friends have done with jbake (jbake.org) in thier site
> (https://netbeans.apache.org/). There, in each page you have a button ("See
> this page in GitHub") where you/anyone can edit the original asciidoc file
> and make PR for contribution.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gilberto
>
>
> David Blevins-2 wrote
>> All,
>>
>> I have a draft of something we can kick around for our website overall.
>>
>> -
>> https://github.com/apache/tomee-site-generator/blob/master/WEBSITE-2020.adoc
>>
>> This took 3 hours to write so apologies for the size. Much of this is
>> experience from all the efforts of the past, some imagined improvements to
>> successful parts of the site, while paving the way for the Antora work.
>>
>> Food on the table, cranky wife! Must go!
>>
>> Sorry for the short email! :)
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Blevins
>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/TomEE-Dev-f982480.html
Re: Draft Proposal for overall website direction
I would stick with jvm tool (jbake) instead of add/learn one
more(node-antora). Specially I would to suggest we adopt what our Apache
Netbeans friends have done with jbake (jbake.org) in thier site
(https://netbeans.apache.org/). There, in each page you have a button ("See
this page in GitHub") where you/anyone can edit the original asciidoc file
and make PR for contribution.
Regards,
Gilberto
David Blevins-2 wrote
> All,
>
> I have a draft of something we can kick around for our website overall.
>
> -
> https://github.com/apache/tomee-site-generator/blob/master/WEBSITE-2020.adoc
>
> This took 3 hours to write so apologies for the size. Much of this is
> experience from all the efforts of the past, some imagined improvements to
> successful parts of the site, while paving the way for the Antora work.
>
> Food on the table, cranky wife! Must go!
>
> Sorry for the short email! :)
>
>
> --
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
--
Sent from: http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/TomEE-Dev-f982480.html
