You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> on 2013/03/28 14:28:57 UTC
[DISCUSS][DOCS] Docs as their own repo? Was: [DISCUSS][TRANSLATION]
commit to master or not ?
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 08:02:59AM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been pulling all translations (docs and UI) and committing them in 4.1 branch to make the deadline.
>
> I have not yet committed them to master and now I am wondering if we should.
>
> There would be tons of small files pushed in master.
>
> -Sebastien
Before we get to this, I have a broader question: Do we want to move
the docs to their own git repo? We manage them with different rules,
especially WRT code freeze and whatnot. This translation question just
adds to the logic to pull the repo apart.
-chip
Re: [DISCUSS][DOCS] Docs as their own repo? Was:
[DISCUSS][TRANSLATION] commit to master or not ?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:45:41AM -0400, David Nalley wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Chip Childers
> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:27:00AM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013, at 08:28 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
> >> > Before we get to this, I have a broader question: Do we want to move
> >> > the docs to their own git repo? We manage them with different rules,
> >> > especially WRT code freeze and whatnot. This translation question just
> >> > adds to the logic to pull the repo apart.
> >>
> >> This came up once before, and initially I was against having a different
> >> repo - but we've tried it for a while, and maybe it makes sense to break
> >> it out.
> >>
> >> Two questions:
> >>
> >> - one, are we still going to bundle docs into the tarball for release?
> >
> > I'd propose that they are actually a distinct download / artifact for
> > the release. I'd procedurally release them at the same time as the
> > source artifacts, but I don't think that there's a ton of value in
> > bundling them with the source. The build processes are different, and
> > packaging doesn't pull in the docs anyway. Really, our docs are being
> > published to our website as the primary target for distribution right
> > now anyway...
> >
> >>
> >> - two, there was a proposal about using docs as tooltips, how would this
> >> affect that if the two are separate trees?
> >
> > Unsure where that proposal went... and frankly I'm not sure I agree
> > with that approach anyway.
> >
>
> That proposal moved forward and the first generation is in 4.1 iirc.
> That said it's not in the state originally proposed, and I've been
> struggling to get answers on how it is going to be handled in the
> future.
> If this is a veto from you, lets stop folks from working on it.
>
> --David
>
Not a veto ATM. Let's take this to a separate thread to discuss.
Re: [DISCUSS][DOCS] Docs as their own repo? Was: [DISCUSS][TRANSLATION]
commit to master or not ?
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:27:00AM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013, at 08:28 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
>> > Before we get to this, I have a broader question: Do we want to move
>> > the docs to their own git repo? We manage them with different rules,
>> > especially WRT code freeze and whatnot. This translation question just
>> > adds to the logic to pull the repo apart.
>>
>> This came up once before, and initially I was against having a different
>> repo - but we've tried it for a while, and maybe it makes sense to break
>> it out.
>>
>> Two questions:
>>
>> - one, are we still going to bundle docs into the tarball for release?
>
> I'd propose that they are actually a distinct download / artifact for
> the release. I'd procedurally release them at the same time as the
> source artifacts, but I don't think that there's a ton of value in
> bundling them with the source. The build processes are different, and
> packaging doesn't pull in the docs anyway. Really, our docs are being
> published to our website as the primary target for distribution right
> now anyway...
>
>>
>> - two, there was a proposal about using docs as tooltips, how would this
>> affect that if the two are separate trees?
>
> Unsure where that proposal went... and frankly I'm not sure I agree
> with that approach anyway.
>
That proposal moved forward and the first generation is in 4.1 iirc.
That said it's not in the state originally proposed, and I've been
struggling to get answers on how it is going to be handled in the
future.
If this is a veto from you, lets stop folks from working on it.
--David
Re: [DISCUSS][DOCS] Docs as their own repo? Was:
[DISCUSS][TRANSLATION] commit to master or not ?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:27:00AM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013, at 08:28 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
> > Before we get to this, I have a broader question: Do we want to move
> > the docs to their own git repo? We manage them with different rules,
> > especially WRT code freeze and whatnot. This translation question just
> > adds to the logic to pull the repo apart.
>
> This came up once before, and initially I was against having a different
> repo - but we've tried it for a while, and maybe it makes sense to break
> it out.
>
> Two questions:
>
> - one, are we still going to bundle docs into the tarball for release?
I'd propose that they are actually a distinct download / artifact for
the release. I'd procedurally release them at the same time as the
source artifacts, but I don't think that there's a ton of value in
bundling them with the source. The build processes are different, and
packaging doesn't pull in the docs anyway. Really, our docs are being
published to our website as the primary target for distribution right
now anyway...
>
> - two, there was a proposal about using docs as tooltips, how would this
> affect that if the two are separate trees?
Unsure where that proposal went... and frankly I'm not sure I agree
with that approach anyway.
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
Re: [DISCUSS][DOCS] Docs as their own repo? Was: [DISCUSS][TRANSLATION]
commit to master or not ?
Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013, at 08:28 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Before we get to this, I have a broader question: Do we want to move
> the docs to their own git repo? We manage them with different rules,
> especially WRT code freeze and whatnot. This translation question just
> adds to the logic to pull the repo apart.
This came up once before, and initially I was against having a different
repo - but we've tried it for a while, and maybe it makes sense to break
it out.
Two questions:
- one, are we still going to bundle docs into the tarball for release?
- two, there was a proposal about using docs as tooltips, how would this
affect that if the two are separate trees?
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/