Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-docs] [Magnum] Using common tooling for API docs

2016-08-29 Thread hie...@vn.fujitsu.com 
Hi,

The works in Magnum api-ref can be reviewed at [1]. Please take a look and get 
these to be merged ASAP.

[1]. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/magnum-doc-rest-api

Thanks,
Hieu LE.

From: Anne Gentle [mailto:annegen...@justwriteclick.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 8:20 AM
To: Shuu Mutou <shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com>
Cc: m...@redhat.com; Haruhiko Katou <har-ka...@ts.jp.nec.com>; 
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org; openstack-d...@lists.openstack.org; 
kenichi.omi...@necam.com
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-docs] [Magnum] Using common tooling for 
API docs



On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Shuu Mutou 
<shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com<mailto:shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com>> wrote:
>   AFAIK, the API WG adopted Swagger (OpenAPI) as common tool for API
> docs.
>   Anne, has not the adoption been changed? Otherwise, do we need to
> maintain much RST files also?
>
>
>
> It does say either/or in the API WG guideline:
> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/api-docs.html

Yes. Also Ken'ichi Omichi said.


> This isn't about a contest between projects for the best approach. This
> is about serving end-users the best information we can.

Yes. Correct information is the best information. The Accuracy is more 
important than web experience. When I was a user (and SIer), the document 
accuracy had not been kept. So we had to read source code at last. And now, as 
a developer (mainly UI plugins), I don't want maintain overlapped content 
several times (API source code, API reference, helps in client, helps in WebUI, 
etc). So I spend efforts to the spec auto-generation.


> I'm reporting what I'm seeing from a broader viewpoint than a single project.
> I don't have a solution other than RST/YAML for common navigation, and I'm
> asking you to provide ideas for that integration point.
>
> My vision is that even if you choose to publish with OpenAPI, you would
> find a way to make this web experience better. We can do better than this
> scattered approach. I'm asking you to find a way to unify and consider the
> web experience of a consumer of OpenStack services. Can you generate HTML
> that can plug into the openstackdocstheme we are providing as a common tool?

I need to know about the "common tools". Please, let me know what is difference 
between HTMLs built by Lars's patch and by common tools? Or can fairy-slipper 
do that from OpenAPI file?

Sure, sounds like there's some info missing that I can clarify.

All HTML built for OpenStack sites are copied via FTP. There's no difference 
except for the CSS and JavaScript provided by openstackdocstheme and built by 
os-api-ref.

Fairy-slipper is no longer being worked on as a common solution to serving all 
OpenStack API information. It was used for migration purposes.

Lars's patch could find a way to use the CSS and JS to create a seamless 
experience for end-users.

Anne



Thanks,
Shu


> -Original Message-
> From: Anne Gentle 
> [mailto:annegen...@justwriteclick.com<mailto:annegen...@justwriteclick.com>]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:55 AM
> To: Mutou Shuu(武藤 周) <shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com<mailto:shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com>>
> Cc: 
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>; 
> m...@redhat.com<mailto:m...@redhat.com>; Katou Haruhiko(加
> 藤 治彦) <har-ka...@ts.jp.nec.com<mailto:har-ka...@ts.jp.nec.com>>; 
> openstack-d...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-d...@lists.openstack.org>;
> kenichi.omi...@necam.com<mailto:kenichi.omi...@necam.com>
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-docs] [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Using common
> tooling for API docs
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 1:05 AM, Shuu Mutou 
> <shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com<mailto:shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com>
> <mailto:shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com<mailto:shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com>> > wrote:
>
>
>   Hi Anne,
>
>   AFAIK, the API WG adopted Swagger (OpenAPI) as common tool for API
> docs.
>   Anne, has not the adoption been changed? Otherwise, do we need to
> maintain much RST files also?
>
>
>
> It does say either/or in the API WG guideline:
> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/api-docs.html
>
>
>
>   IMO, for that the reference and the source code doesn't have
> conflict, these should be near each other as possible as follow. And it
> decreases maintainance costs for documents, and increases document
> reliability. So I believe our approach is more ideal.
>
>
>
>
> This isn't about a contest between projects for the best approach. This
> is about serving end-users the best information we can.
>
>
>   The Best: the references generated from source code.
>
>
>
> I don't want to argue, but anything gene

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-docs] [Magnum] Using common tooling for API docs

2016-08-20 Thread Anne Gentle 
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Shuu Mutou <shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com> wrote:

> >   AFAIK, the API WG adopted Swagger (OpenAPI) as common tool for API
> > docs.
> >   Anne, has not the adoption been changed? Otherwise, do we need to
> > maintain much RST files also?
> >
> >
> >
> > It does say either/or in the API WG guideline:
> > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/api-docs.html
>
> Yes. Also Ken'ichi Omichi said.
>
>
> > This isn't about a contest between projects for the best approach. This
> > is about serving end-users the best information we can.
>
> Yes. Correct information is the best information. The Accuracy is more
> important than web experience. When I was a user (and SIer), the document
> accuracy had not been kept. So we had to read source code at last. And now,
> as a developer (mainly UI plugins), I don't want maintain overlapped
> content several times (API source code, API reference, helps in client,
> helps in WebUI, etc). So I spend efforts to the spec auto-generation.
>
>
> > I'm reporting what I'm seeing from a broader viewpoint than a single
> project.
> > I don't have a solution other than RST/YAML for common navigation, and
> I'm
> > asking you to provide ideas for that integration point.
> >
> > My vision is that even if you choose to publish with OpenAPI, you would
> > find a way to make this web experience better. We can do better than this
> > scattered approach. I'm asking you to find a way to unify and consider
> the
> > web experience of a consumer of OpenStack services. Can you generate HTML
> > that can plug into the openstackdocstheme we are providing as a common
> tool?
>
> I need to know about the "common tools". Please, let me know what is
> difference between HTMLs built by Lars's patch and by common tools? Or can
> fairy-slipper do that from OpenAPI file?
>
>
Sure, sounds like there's some info missing that I can clarify.

All HTML built for OpenStack sites are copied via FTP. There's no
difference except for the CSS and JavaScript provided by openstackdocstheme
and built by os-api-ref.

Fairy-slipper is no longer being worked on as a common solution to serving
all OpenStack API information. It was used for migration purposes.

Lars's patch could find a way to use the CSS and JS to create a seamless
experience for end-users.

Anne



>
> Thanks,
> Shu
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Anne Gentle [mailto:annegen...@justwriteclick.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:55 AM
> > To: Mutou Shuu(武藤 周) <shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com>
> > Cc: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org; m...@redhat.com; Katou Haruhiko(加
> > 藤 治彦) <har-ka...@ts.jp.nec.com>; openstack-d...@lists.openstack.org;
> > kenichi.omi...@necam.com
> > Subject: Re: [OpenStack-docs] [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Using common
> > tooling for API docs
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 1:05 AM, Shuu Mutou <shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com
> > <mailto:shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >   Hi Anne,
> >
> >   AFAIK, the API WG adopted Swagger (OpenAPI) as common tool for API
> > docs.
> >   Anne, has not the adoption been changed? Otherwise, do we need to
> > maintain much RST files also?
> >
> >
> >
> > It does say either/or in the API WG guideline:
> > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/api-docs.html
> >
> >
> >
> >   IMO, for that the reference and the source code doesn't have
> > conflict, these should be near each other as possible as follow. And it
> > decreases maintainance costs for documents, and increases document
> > reliability. So I believe our approach is more ideal.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This isn't about a contest between projects for the best approach. This
> > is about serving end-users the best information we can.
> >
> >
> >   The Best: the references generated from source code.
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't want to argue, but anything generated from the source code
> suffers
> > if the source code changes in a way that reviewers don't catch as a
> > backwards-incompatible change you can break your contract.
> >
> >
> >   Better: the references written in docstring.
> >
> >   We know some projects abandoned these approach, and then they uses
> > RST + YAML.
> >   But we hope decreasing maintainance cost for the documents. So we
> > should not create so much RST files, I think.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-docs] [Magnum] Using common tooling for API docs

2016-08-19 Thread Shuu Mutou 
>   AFAIK, the API WG adopted Swagger (OpenAPI) as common tool for API
> docs.
>   Anne, has not the adoption been changed? Otherwise, do we need to
> maintain much RST files also?
> 
> 
> 
> It does say either/or in the API WG guideline:
> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/api-docs.html

Yes. Also Ken'ichi Omichi said.


> This isn't about a contest between projects for the best approach. This
> is about serving end-users the best information we can.

Yes. Correct information is the best information. The Accuracy is more 
important than web experience. When I was a user (and SIer), the document 
accuracy had not been kept. So we had to read source code at last. And now, as 
a developer (mainly UI plugins), I don't want maintain overlapped content 
several times (API source code, API reference, helps in client, helps in WebUI, 
etc). So I spend efforts to the spec auto-generation.


> I'm reporting what I'm seeing from a broader viewpoint than a single project.
> I don't have a solution other than RST/YAML for common navigation, and I'm
> asking you to provide ideas for that integration point.
> 
> My vision is that even if you choose to publish with OpenAPI, you would
> find a way to make this web experience better. We can do better than this
> scattered approach. I'm asking you to find a way to unify and consider the
> web experience of a consumer of OpenStack services. Can you generate HTML
> that can plug into the openstackdocstheme we are providing as a common tool?

I need to know about the "common tools". Please, let me know what is difference 
between HTMLs built by Lars's patch and by common tools? Or can fairy-slipper 
do that from OpenAPI file?


Thanks,
Shu


> -Original Message-
> From: Anne Gentle [mailto:annegen...@justwriteclick.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:55 AM
> To: Mutou Shuu(武藤 周) <shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com>
> Cc: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org; m...@redhat.com; Katou Haruhiko(加
> 藤 治彦) <har-ka...@ts.jp.nec.com>; openstack-d...@lists.openstack.org;
> kenichi.omi...@necam.com
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-docs] [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Using common
> tooling for API docs
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 1:05 AM, Shuu Mutou <shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com
> <mailto:shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com> > wrote:
> 
> 
>   Hi Anne,
> 
>   AFAIK, the API WG adopted Swagger (OpenAPI) as common tool for API
> docs.
>   Anne, has not the adoption been changed? Otherwise, do we need to
> maintain much RST files also?
> 
> 
> 
> It does say either/or in the API WG guideline:
> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/api-docs.html
> 
> 
> 
>   IMO, for that the reference and the source code doesn't have
> conflict, these should be near each other as possible as follow. And it
> decreases maintainance costs for documents, and increases document
> reliability. So I believe our approach is more ideal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about a contest between projects for the best approach. This
> is about serving end-users the best information we can.
> 
> 
>   The Best: the references generated from source code.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to argue, but anything generated from the source code suffers
> if the source code changes in a way that reviewers don't catch as a
> backwards-incompatible change you can break your contract.
> 
> 
>   Better: the references written in docstring.
> 
>   We know some projects abandoned these approach, and then they uses
> RST + YAML.
>   But we hope decreasing maintainance cost for the documents. So we
> should not create so much RST files, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll see the evolution of our discussions over the years has
> brought us to this point in time. Yes, there are trade-offs in these
> decisions.
> 
> 
> 
>   I'm proceeding auto-generation of swagger spec from magnum source
> code using pecan-swagger [1], and improving pecan-swagger with Michael
> McCune [2].
>   These will generate almost Magnum API specs automatically in
> OpenAPI format.
>   Also, these approach can be adopted by other APIs that uses pecan
> and WSME.
>   Please check this also.
> 
> 
> 
> I ask you to consider the experience of someone consuming the API documents
> OpenStack provides. There are 26 REST API services under an OpenStack
> umbrella. Twelve of them will be included in an unified side-bar navigation
> on developer.openstack.org <http://developer.openstack.org>  due to
> using Sphinx tooling provided as a common web experience. Six of them don't
> have redirects yet from the "old way" to do API reference docs. Seven of
> t

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-docs] [Magnum] Using common tooling for API docs

2016-08-16 Thread Anne Gentle 
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 1:05 AM, Shuu Mutou <shu-mu...@rf.jp.nec.com> wrote:

> Hi Anne,
>
> AFAIK, the API WG adopted Swagger (OpenAPI) as common tool for API docs.
> Anne, has not the adoption been changed? Otherwise, do we need to maintain
> much RST files also?
>

It does say either/or in the API WG guideline:
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/api-docs.html


>
> IMO, for that the reference and the source code doesn't have conflict,
> these should be near each other as possible as follow. And it decreases
> maintainance costs for documents, and increases document reliability. So I
> believe our approach is more ideal.
>
>
This isn't about a contest between projects for the best approach. This is
about serving end-users the best information we can.


> The Best: the references generated from source code.
>

I don't want to argue, but anything generated from the source code suffers
if the source code changes in a way that reviewers don't catch as a
backwards-incompatible change you can break your contract.


> Better: the references written in docstring.
>
> We know some projects abandoned these approach, and then they uses RST +
> YAML.
> But we hope decreasing maintainance cost for the documents. So we should
> not create so much RST files, I think.
>
>
I think you'll see the evolution of our discussions over the years has
brought us to this point in time. Yes, there are trade-offs in these
decisions.


> I'm proceeding auto-generation of swagger spec from magnum source code
> using pecan-swagger [1], and improving pecan-swagger with Michael McCune
> [2].
> These will generate almost Magnum API specs automatically in OpenAPI
> format.
> Also, these approach can be adopted by other APIs that uses pecan and WSME.
> Please check this also.
>

I ask you to consider the experience of someone consuming the API documents
OpenStack provides. There are 26 REST API services under an OpenStack
umbrella. Twelve of them will be included in an unified side-bar navigation
on developer.openstack.org due to using Sphinx tooling provided as a common
web experience. Six of them don't have redirects yet from the "old way" to
do API reference docs. Seven of them are not collected under a single
landing page or common sidebar or navigation. Three of them have no API
docs published to a website.

I'm reporting what I'm seeing from a broader viewpoint than a single
project. I don't have a solution other than RST/YAML for common navigation,
and I'm asking you to provide ideas for that integration point.

My vision is that even if you choose to publish with OpenAPI, you would
find a way to make this web experience better. We can do better than this
scattered approach. I'm asking you to find a way to unify and consider the
web experience of a consumer of OpenStack services. Can you generate HTML
that can plug into the openstackdocstheme we are providing as a common tool?
Thanks,
Anne


>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/303235/
> [2] https://github.com/elmiko/pecan-swagger/
>
> Regards,
> Shu
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Anne Gentle [mailto:annegen...@justwriteclick.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 11:00 AM
> > To: Hongbin Lu <hongbin...@huawei.com>
> > Cc: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org; enstack.org
> > <openstack-d...@lists.openstack.org>
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-docs] [Magnum] Using common
> > tooling for API docs
> >
> > Hi Hongbin,
> >
> > Thanks for asking. I'd like for teams to look for ways to innovate and
> > integrate with the navigation as a good entry point for OpenAPI to become
> > a standard for OpenStack to use. That said, we have to move forward and
> > make progress.
> >
> > Is Lars or anyone on the Magnum team interested in the web development
> work
> > to integrate with the sidebar? See the work at
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329508 and my comments on
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351800/ saying that I would like teams
> > to integrate first to provide the best web experience for people
> consuming
> > the docs.
> >
> > Anne
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Hongbin Lu <hongbin...@huawei.com
> > <mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >   Hi team,
> >
> >
> >
> >   As mentioned in the email below, Magnum are not using common
> tooling
> > for generating API docs, so we are excluded from the common navigation of
> > OpenStack API. I think we need to prioritize the work to fix it. BTW, I
> > notice there is a WIP patch [1] for generating API docs by using Swagger.
> > However, I am not sure if Swagge

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-docs] [Magnum] Using common tooling for API docs

2016-08-16 Thread Shuu Mutou 
Hi Anne,

AFAIK, the API WG adopted Swagger (OpenAPI) as common tool for API docs.
Anne, has not the adoption been changed? Otherwise, do we need to maintain much 
RST files also?

IMO, for that the reference and the source code doesn't have conflict, these 
should be near each other as possible as follow. And it decreases maintainance 
costs for documents, and increases document reliability. So I believe our 
approach is more ideal.

The Best: the references generated from source code.
Better: the references written in docstring.

We know some projects abandoned these approach, and then they uses RST + YAML. 
But we hope decreasing maintainance cost for the documents. So we should not 
create so much RST files, I think.


I'm proceeding auto-generation of swagger spec from magnum source code using 
pecan-swagger [1], and improving pecan-swagger with Michael McCune [2].
These will generate almost Magnum API specs automatically in OpenAPI format.
Also, these approach can be adopted by other APIs that uses pecan and WSME.
Please check this also.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/303235/
[2] https://github.com/elmiko/pecan-swagger/

Regards,
Shu


> -Original Message-
> From: Anne Gentle [mailto:annegen...@justwriteclick.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 11:00 AM
> To: Hongbin Lu <hongbin...@huawei.com>
> Cc: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org; enstack.org
> <openstack-d...@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-docs] [Magnum] Using common
> tooling for API docs
> 
> Hi Hongbin,
> 
> Thanks for asking. I'd like for teams to look for ways to innovate and
> integrate with the navigation as a good entry point for OpenAPI to become
> a standard for OpenStack to use. That said, we have to move forward and
> make progress.
> 
> Is Lars or anyone on the Magnum team interested in the web development work
> to integrate with the sidebar? See the work at
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329508 and my comments on
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351800/ saying that I would like teams
> to integrate first to provide the best web experience for people consuming
> the docs.
> 
> Anne
> 
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Hongbin Lu <hongbin...@huawei.com
> <mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com> > wrote:
> 
> 
>   Hi team,
> 
> 
> 
>   As mentioned in the email below, Magnum are not using common tooling
> for generating API docs, so we are excluded from the common navigation of
> OpenStack API. I think we need to prioritize the work to fix it. BTW, I
> notice there is a WIP patch [1] for generating API docs by using Swagger.
> However, I am not sure if Swagger belongs to “common tooling” (docs team,
> please confirm).
> 
> 
> 
>   [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/317368/
> <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/317368/>
> 
> 
> 
>   Best regards,
> 
>   Hongbin
> 
> 
> 
>   From: Anne Gentle [mailto:annegen...@justwriteclick.com
> <mailto:annegen...@justwriteclick.com> ]
>   Sent: August-10-16 3:50 PM
>   To: OpenStack Development Mailing List;
> openstack-d...@lists.openstack.org
> <mailto:openstack-d...@lists.openstack.org>
>   Subject: [openstack-dev] [api] [doc] API status report
> 
> 
> 
>   Hi all,
> 
>   I wanted to report on status and answer any questions you all have
> about the API reference and guide publishing process.
> 
> 
> 
>   The expectation is that we provide all OpenStack API information
> on developer.openstack.org <http://developer.openstack.org> . In order to
> meet that goal, it's simplest for now to have all projects use the
> RST+YAML+openstackdocstheme+os-api-ref extension tooling so that users
> see available OpenStack APIs in a sidebar navigation drop-down list.
> 
> 
> 
>   --Migration--
> 
>   The current status for migration is that all WADL content is
> migrated except for trove. There is a patch in progress and I'm in contact
> with the team to assist in any way.
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/316381/
> <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/316381/>
> 
> 
> 
>   --Theme, extension, release requirements--
> 
>   The current status for the theme, navigation, and Sphinx extension
> tooling is contained in the latest post from Graham proposing a solution
> for the release number switchover and offers to help teams as needed:
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-August/101112.
> html
> <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-August/101112
> .html>  I hope to meet the requirements deadline to get those changes landed.
> Requirements freeze is Aug 29.
> 
> 
> 
>   --Project coverage--
>

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-docs] [Magnum] Using common tooling for API docs

2016-08-14 Thread Anne Gentle 
Hi Hongbin,

Thanks for asking. I'd like for teams to look for ways to innovate and
integrate with the navigation as a good entry point for OpenAPI to become a
standard for OpenStack to use. That said, we have to move forward and make
progress.

Is Lars or anyone on the Magnum team interested in the web development work
to integrate with the sidebar? See the work at
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/329508 and my comments on
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351800/ saying that I would like teams to
integrate first to provide the best web experience for people consuming the
docs.

Anne

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Hongbin Lu  wrote:

> Hi team,
>
>
>
> As mentioned in the email below, Magnum are not using common tooling for
> generating API docs, so we are excluded from the common navigation of
> OpenStack API. I think we need to prioritize the work to fix it. BTW, I
> notice there is a WIP patch [1] for generating API docs by using Swagger.
> However, I am not sure if Swagger belongs to “common tooling” (docs team,
> please confirm).
>
>
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/317368/
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Hongbin
>
>
>
> *From:* Anne Gentle [mailto:annegen...@justwriteclick.com]
> *Sent:* August-10-16 3:50 PM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List; openstack-docs@lists.
> openstack.org
> *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [api] [doc] API status report
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to report on status and answer any questions you all have about
> the API reference and guide publishing process.
>
>
>
> The expectation is that we provide all OpenStack API information on
> developer.openstack.org. In order to meet that goal, it's simplest for
> now to have all projects use the RST+YAML+openstackdocstheme+os-api-ref
> extension tooling so that users see available OpenStack APIs in a sidebar
> navigation drop-down list.
>
>
>
> --Migration--
>
> The current status for migration is that all WADL content is migrated
> except for trove. There is a patch in progress and I'm in contact with the
> team to assist in any way. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/316381/
>
>
>
> --Theme, extension, release requirements--
>
> The current status for the theme, navigation, and Sphinx extension tooling
> is contained in the latest post from Graham proposing a solution for the
> release number switchover and offers to help teams as needed:
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-August/101112.html
> I hope to meet the requirements deadline to get those changes landed.
> Requirements freeze is Aug 29.
>
>
>
> --Project coverage--
>
> The current status for project coverage is that these projects are now
> using the RST+YAML in-tree workflow and tools and publishing to
> http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/ so they will be
> included in the upcoming API navigation sidebar intended to span all
> OpenStack APIs:
>
>
>
> designate http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/dns/
>
> glance http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/image/
> heat http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/orchestration/
> ironic http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/baremetal/
> keystone http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/identity/
> manila http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/shared-file-systems/
> neutron-lib http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/networking/
> nova http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/compute/
> sahara http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/data-processing/
> senlin http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/clustering/
> swift http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/object-storage/
> zaqar http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/messaging/
>
>
>
> These projects are using the in-tree workflow and common tools, but do not
> have a publish job in project-config in the jenkins/jobs/projects.yaml file.
>
>
>
> ceilometer
>
>
>
> --Projects not using common tooling--
>
> These projects have API docs but are not yet using the common tooling, as
> far as I can tell. Because of the user experience, I'm making a judgement
> call that these cannot be included in the common navigation. I have patched
> the projects.yaml file in the governance repo with the URLs I could
> screen-scrape, but if I'm incorrect please do patch the projects.yaml in
> the governance repo.
>
>
>
> astara
>
> cloudkitty
>
> congress
>
> magnum
>
> mistral
>
> monasca
>
> solum
>
> tacker
>
> trove
>
>
>
> Please reach out if you have questions or need assistance getting started
> with the new common tooling, documented here: http://docs.openstack.
> org/contributor-guide/api-guides.html.
>
>
>
> For searchlight, looking at http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/search/
> they have the build job, but the info is not complete yet.
>
>
>
> One additional project I'm not sure what to do with is networking-nfc,
> since I'm not sure it is considered a neutron API. Can I get help to sort
> that question out?
>
>
> --Redirects from old pages--
>
> We have been adding .htaccess redirects from the old
> api-ref-servicename.html on