You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geode.apache.org by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> on 2016/09/20 16:55:04 UTC
Re: jvsd
Hi Gal,
This page talks about the goals and status for jvsd:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61309918
Here’s another thread which discussed options for moving forward:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geode-dev/201605.mbox/%3C14840688A62CAA4197A28AACCDA9D2DB116448A4@ILRAADAGBE4.corp.amdocs.com%3E
The Geode community is currently discussing the scope for 1.0.0 [1] but so far jvsd is not in scope.
Anthony
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geode-dev/201609.mbox/%3cCAK7stczFXw-q1ZtJVYmh2EQPvis5VhUuz834U5K7pDY1h0XuGQ@mail.gmail.com%3e
> On Sep 20, 2016, at 5:35 AM, Gal Palmery <Ga...@amdocs.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there a plan to merge jvsd to the develop branch in the near future ?
>
> Thanks,
> Gal
>
> This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
> you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp
Re: jvsd
Posted by Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>.
+1
Thanks, Dave!
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:37 AM Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Good observations, John.
> A clarification: JVSD is Geode-only. The corresponding GemFire tool, VSD,
> enjoys a more 'mainstream' status, at least for now, so it still appears in
> the GF user guide.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:34 AM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Even a bit of documentation (which seems scattered about... in the
> > specification, on VMW sites/properties, etc) would go a long way in
> helping
> > users realize the benefit of the tool and provide feedback, maybe even
> > contribute some PRs. Having metrics on GemFire in realtime is hugely
> > invaluable (even just explaining all the metrics and what they mean, how
> > they are visualized should be sufficient).
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Here's a proposal based on what I've seen in this thread:
> > > 1. We remove JVSD documentation from the user manual.
> > > 2. We save what's been written so far (mostly just build instructions)
> > as a
> > > README on the feature branch.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Corporate org structures don’t get a voice on ASF mailing lists, only
> > > > community participants :-)
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > *From: *Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io>
> > > > *Subject: **Re: jvsd*
> > > > *Date: *September 22, 2016 at 4:37:19 PM PDT
> > > > *To: *dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> > > > *Reply-To: *dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -John
> > 503-504-8657
> > john.blum10101 (skype)
> >
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io>.
Good observations, John.
A clarification: JVSD is Geode-only. The corresponding GemFire tool, VSD,
enjoys a more 'mainstream' status, at least for now, so it still appears in
the GF user guide.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:34 AM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1
>
> Even a bit of documentation (which seems scattered about... in the
> specification, on VMW sites/properties, etc) would go a long way in helping
> users realize the benefit of the tool and provide feedback, maybe even
> contribute some PRs. Having metrics on GemFire in realtime is hugely
> invaluable (even just explaining all the metrics and what they mean, how
> they are visualized should be sufficient).
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Here's a proposal based on what I've seen in this thread:
> > 1. We remove JVSD documentation from the user manual.
> > 2. We save what's been written so far (mostly just build instructions)
> as a
> > README on the feature branch.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Corporate org structures don’t get a voice on ASF mailing lists, only
> > > community participants :-)
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > >
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > *From: *Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io>
> > > *Subject: **Re: jvsd*
> > > *Date: *September 22, 2016 at 4:37:19 PM PDT
> > > *To: *dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> > > *Reply-To: *dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > > Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -John
> 503-504-8657
> john.blum10101 (skype)
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io>.
+1
Even a bit of documentation (which seems scattered about... in the
specification, on VMW sites/properties, etc) would go a long way in helping
users realize the benefit of the tool and provide feedback, maybe even
contribute some PRs. Having metrics on GemFire in realtime is hugely
invaluable (even just explaining all the metrics and what they mean, how
they are visualized should be sufficient).
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Here's a proposal based on what I've seen in this thread:
> 1. We remove JVSD documentation from the user manual.
> 2. We save what's been written so far (mostly just build instructions) as a
> README on the feature branch.
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Corporate org structures don’t get a voice on ASF mailing lists, only
> > community participants :-)
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > *From: *Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io>
> > *Subject: **Re: jvsd*
> > *Date: *September 22, 2016 at 4:37:19 PM PDT
> > *To: *dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> > *Reply-To: *dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> >
> > Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
> >
> >
> >
>
--
-John
503-504-8657
john.blum10101 (skype)
Re: jvsd
Posted by Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io>.
Here's a proposal based on what I've seen in this thread:
1. We remove JVSD documentation from the user manual.
2. We save what's been written so far (mostly just build instructions) as a
README on the feature branch.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Corporate org structures don’t get a voice on ASF mailing lists, only
> community participants :-)
>
> Anthony
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io>
> *Subject: **Re: jvsd*
> *Date: *September 22, 2016 at 4:37:19 PM PDT
> *To: *dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
> *Reply-To: *dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
>
> Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
>
>
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io>.
+1 If its not part of a release its documentation shouldn't be either.
--
Mike Stolz
Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager
Mobile: 631-835-4771
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> If it isn't on develop or planned for release, then I vote for removing it
> from the user guide altogether. I like the recommendation to keep this and
> similar (non-develop branch) information on the wiki, so the community can
> still easily access it.
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:51 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > JVSD isn't labeled as Experimental because it isn't even on develop or in
> > part of any Geode release candidate. As far as I know, it exists only on
> an
> > incomplete and out-of-date feature branch. Hence, my vote is to remove
> any
> > mention of it from the docs until it merges to develop or at a minimum
> gets
> > updated (rebased) from develop (or M3).
> >
> > Has anyone done any rebasing or other work on the JVSD branch that I'm
> not
> > aware of?
> >
> > -Kirk
> >
> > On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would vote for including it as an "experimental" feature.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Process for handling Experimental docs is still being hammered out.
> > > Common
> > > > element among working scenarios is isolation from the body of the
> User
> > > > Guide proper, so I'll remove the JVSD component from the User Guide's
> > > Tools
> > > > and Modules section.
> > > > Could go on the Wiki, could go in an appendix. We'll see what
> emerges.
> > > > Any favorites among the readers of this thread?
> > > > Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <jblum@pivotal.io
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Truthfully, I don't think this is any different than API features
> > that
> > > > have
> > > > > been annotated with "@Experimental" (e.g. LucenceService
> > > > > <http://geode.incubator.apache.org/releases/latest/
> > > > > javadoc/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneService.html>).
> > > > > I.e. nothing is going to stop a user from trying to use a
> > > > > feature/function/tool and searching for relevant information on how
> > to
> > > > use
> > > > > it if they know it exists, either explicitly or implicitly.
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact, I would think it is advantageous if they know it does
> exist,
> > > > even
> > > > > prior to an official release, so that feedback can be gathered.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it is not to be part of the "official" User Guide, perhaps a
> Wiki
> > > page
> > > > > (other than the specification
> > > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode>
> > > > > [1])
> > > > > or better yet, a GitHub README page along with the source code if
> > users
> > > > are
> > > > > given access to build and use the tool themselves.
> > > > >
> > > > > If part of the "official" User Guide (under tools), then perhaps a
> > > > > "Experimental" label.
> > > > >
> > > > > Food for thought.
> > > > >
> > > > > -John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Baker <abaker@pivotal.io
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is
> included
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > source and binary release distributions will only confuse users.
> > +1
> > > > for
> > > > > > removing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anthony
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
> > > > > > > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html.
> > > > > > > Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode 1.0
> > > docs.
> > > > > > Right
> > > > > > >> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the
> docs
> > > > > should
> > > > > > >> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future
> features
> > or
> > > > > > features
> > > > > > >> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that would
> > > > > probably
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> Kirk
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
> > > > > > jmcallister@pivotal.io <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <
> > dbarnes@pivotal.io
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The
> > current
> > > > > > >> writeup
> > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > >>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that
> it's
> > > not
> > > > > > >> fully
> > > > > > >>>> baked and we don't support it".
> > > > > > >>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <
> > dsmith@pivotal.io
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at
> this
> > > > point,
> > > > > > >>>> because
> > > > > > >>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0
> release
> > > more
> > > > > > >>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I
> > > think
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > > >>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make
> it
> > > > easier
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> -Dan
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -John
> > > > > 503-504-8657
> > > > > john.blum10101 (skype)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io>.
Who are you "end users"?
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> When the first instruction is `git checkout feature/GEODE-78` I think it’s
> clear the target audience is not end users.
>
> Beyond that, it feels to early to document a feature whose final form may
> look significantly different than it does today.
>
> Anthony
>
> > On Sep 22, 2016, at 5:06 PM, Kirk Lund <ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <jmcallister@pivotal.io
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> If it isn't on develop or planned for release, then I vote for removing
> it
> >> from the user guide altogether. I like the recommendation to keep this
> and
> >> similar (non-develop branch) information on the wiki, so the community
> can
> >> still easily access it.
>
>
--
-John
503-504-8657
john.blum10101 (skype)
Re: jvsd
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
When the first instruction is `git checkout feature/GEODE-78` I think it’s clear the target audience is not end users.
Beyond that, it feels to early to document a feature whose final form may look significantly different than it does today.
Anthony
> On Sep 22, 2016, at 5:06 PM, Kirk Lund <ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>> If it isn't on develop or planned for release, then I vote for removing it
>> from the user guide altogether. I like the recommendation to keep this and
>> similar (non-develop branch) information on the wiki, so the community can
>> still easily access it.
Re: jvsd
Posted by John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io>.
+1
*Spring Boot* does this too (in some places, for instance, here
<https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/tree/master/spring-boot-actuator>
[1]
and here
<https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/tree/master/spring-boot-samples/spring-boot-sample-cache>
[2];
and then from the docs... here
<http://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/1.4.1.RELEASE/reference/htmlsingle/#production-ready>
[3]
and here
<http://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/1.4.1.RELEASE/reference/htmlsingle/#boot-features-caching>
[4],
respectively)
However, they do not have any features that are "experimental" in an actual
release (Milestone, Release Candidate, GA).
[1]
https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/tree/master/spring-boot-actuator
[2]
https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/tree/master/spring-boot-samples/spring-boot-sample-cache
[3]
http://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/1.4.1.RELEASE/reference/htmlsingle/#production-ready
[4]
http://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/1.4.1.RELEASE/reference/htmlsingle/#boot-features-caching
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> Yeah, I'm with you there. Content for developers should live where
> developers are most likely to read it, and I don't think the wiki should be
> in lieu of the READMEs.
>
> I'm not a fan of trying to host any sort of documentation geared toward a
> single audience in more than one place (e.g., a README *and* a Geode Wiki
> page). The wiki is great for other Geode content (how-to articles,
> community process stuff, things that don't have an obvious home elsewhere),
> but perhaps actual feature documentation should live exclusively in the
> READMEs (until it's on develop/scheduled for release, at which time it
> should also be documented in the user guide).
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:30 PM John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > And by Wiki, I mean GitHub's Wiki associated with the (source code)
> > Repository. Between GitHub Wiki and README, README wins every time for
> > reason previously mentioned.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:28 PM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Personally, as a engineer, I am more of a fan of the GitHub README (or
> > > even Wiki), rather than a separate site. A lot easier for users to
> > update
> > > (submit a PR).
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Kirk Lund <ki...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
> > jmcallister@pivotal.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > If it isn't on develop or planned for release, then I vote for
> > removing
> > >> it
> > >> > from the user guide altogether. I like the recommendation to keep
> this
> > >> and
> > >> > similar (non-develop branch) information on the wiki, so the
> community
> > >> can
> > >> > still easily access it.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:51 PM Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> > >> <javascript:;>>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > JVSD isn't labeled as Experimental because it isn't even on
> develop
> > >> or in
> > >> > > part of any Geode release candidate. As far as I know, it exists
> > only
> > >> on
> > >> > an
> > >> > > incomplete and out-of-date feature branch. Hence, my vote is to
> > remove
> > >> > any
> > >> > > mention of it from the docs until it merges to develop or at a
> > minimum
> > >> > gets
> > >> > > updated (rebased) from develop (or M3).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Has anyone done any rebasing or other work on the JVSD branch that
> > I'm
> > >> > not
> > >> > > aware of?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -Kirk
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Swapnil Bawaskar <
> > >> sbawaskar@pivotal.io
> > >> > <javascript:;>>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I would vote for including it as an "experimental" feature.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dave Barnes <
> dbarnes@pivotal.io
> > >> > <javascript:;>
> > >> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Process for handling Experimental docs is still being hammered
> > >> out.
> > >> > > > Common
> > >> > > > > element among working scenarios is isolation from the body of
> > the
> > >> > User
> > >> > > > > Guide proper, so I'll remove the JVSD component from the User
> > >> Guide's
> > >> > > > Tools
> > >> > > > > and Modules section.
> > >> > > > > Could go on the Wiki, could go in an appendix. We'll see what
> > >> > emerges.
> > >> > > > > Any favorites among the readers of this thread?
> > >> > > > > Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <jblum@pivotal.io
> > >> > <javascript:;>
> > >> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Truthfully, I don't think this is any different than API
> > >> features
> > >> > > that
> > >> > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > been annotated with "@Experimental" (e.g. LucenceService
> > >> > > > > > <http://geode.incubator.apache.org/releases/latest/
> > >> > > > > >
> > javadoc/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneService.html>).
> > >> > > > > > I.e. nothing is going to stop a user from trying to use a
> > >> > > > > > feature/function/tool and searching for relevant information
> > on
> > >> how
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > use
> > >> > > > > > it if they know it exists, either explicitly or implicitly.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > In fact, I would think it is advantageous if they know it
> does
> > >> > exist,
> > >> > > > > even
> > >> > > > > > prior to an official release, so that feedback can be
> > gathered.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > If it is not to be part of the "official" User Guide,
> perhaps
> > a
> > >> > Wiki
> > >> > > > page
> > >> > > > > > (other than the specification
> > >> > > > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > >> > > > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode>
> > >> > > > > > [1])
> > >> > > > > > or better yet, a GitHub README page along with the source
> code
> > >> if
> > >> > > users
> > >> > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > given access to build and use the tool themselves.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > If part of the "official" User Guide (under tools), then
> > >> perhaps a
> > >> > > > > > "Experimental" label.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Food for thought.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > -John
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > >> > > > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > >> abaker@pivotal.io
> > >> > <javascript:;>
> > >> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is
> > >> > included
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > source and binary release distributions will only confuse
> > >> users.
> > >> > > +1
> > >> > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > removing.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Anthony
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <
> > >> dbarnes@pivotal.io
> > >> > <javascript:;>
> > >> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
> > >> > > > > > > > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/
> docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html
> > .
> > >> > > > > > > > Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <
> > >> klund@apache.org
> > >> > <javascript:;>
> > >> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the
> Geode
> > >> 1.0
> > >> > > > docs.
> > >> > > > > > > Right
> > >> > > > > > > >> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think
> > the
> > >> > docs
> > >> > > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > > >> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > >> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future
> > >> > features
> > >> > > or
> > >> > > > > > > features
> > >> > > > > > > >> currently looking for contributors/developers, then
> that
> > >> would
> > >> > > > > > probably
> > >> > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > >> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > > >> Kirk
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
> > >> > > > > > > jmcallister@pivotal.io <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > >> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
> > >> > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <
> > >> > > dbarnes@pivotal.io <javascript:;>
> > >> > > > <javascript:;>
> > >> > > > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs?
> > The
> > >> > > current
> > >> > > > > > > >> writeup
> > >> > > > > > > >>> is
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned
> > that
> > >> > it's
> > >> > > > not
> > >> > > > > > > >> fully
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> baked and we don't support it".
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for
> > >> 1.0.0?
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <
> > >> > > dsmith@pivotal.io <javascript:;>
> > >> > > > <javascript:;>
> > >> > > > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0
> > at
> > >> > this
> > >> > > > > point,
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> because
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0
> > >> > release
> > >> > > > more
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency.
> > >> But I
> > >> > > > think
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> should
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to
> > >> make
> > >> > it
> > >> > > > > easier
> > >> > > > > > > >> for
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> -Dan
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > -John
> > >> > > > > > 503-504-8657
> > >> > > > > > john.blum10101 (skype)
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -John
> > > 503-504-8657
> > > john.blum10101 (skype)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -John
> > 503-504-8657
> > john.blum10101 (skype)
> >
>
--
-John
503-504-8657
john.blum10101 (skype)
Re: jvsd
Posted by Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>.
Yeah, I'm with you there. Content for developers should live where
developers are most likely to read it, and I don't think the wiki should be
in lieu of the READMEs.
I'm not a fan of trying to host any sort of documentation geared toward a
single audience in more than one place (e.g., a README *and* a Geode Wiki
page). The wiki is great for other Geode content (how-to articles,
community process stuff, things that don't have an obvious home elsewhere),
but perhaps actual feature documentation should live exclusively in the
READMEs (until it's on develop/scheduled for release, at which time it
should also be documented in the user guide).
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:30 PM John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> And by Wiki, I mean GitHub's Wiki associated with the (source code)
> Repository. Between GitHub Wiki and README, README wins every time for
> reason previously mentioned.
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:28 PM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Personally, as a engineer, I am more of a fan of the GitHub README (or
> > even Wiki), rather than a separate site. A lot easier for users to
> update
> > (submit a PR).
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Kirk Lund <ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
> jmcallister@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > If it isn't on develop or planned for release, then I vote for
> removing
> >> it
> >> > from the user guide altogether. I like the recommendation to keep this
> >> and
> >> > similar (non-develop branch) information on the wiki, so the community
> >> can
> >> > still easily access it.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:51 PM Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> >> <javascript:;>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > JVSD isn't labeled as Experimental because it isn't even on develop
> >> or in
> >> > > part of any Geode release candidate. As far as I know, it exists
> only
> >> on
> >> > an
> >> > > incomplete and out-of-date feature branch. Hence, my vote is to
> remove
> >> > any
> >> > > mention of it from the docs until it merges to develop or at a
> minimum
> >> > gets
> >> > > updated (rebased) from develop (or M3).
> >> > >
> >> > > Has anyone done any rebasing or other work on the JVSD branch that
> I'm
> >> > not
> >> > > aware of?
> >> > >
> >> > > -Kirk
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Swapnil Bawaskar <
> >> sbawaskar@pivotal.io
> >> > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I would vote for including it as an "experimental" feature.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> >> > <javascript:;>
> >> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Process for handling Experimental docs is still being hammered
> >> out.
> >> > > > Common
> >> > > > > element among working scenarios is isolation from the body of
> the
> >> > User
> >> > > > > Guide proper, so I'll remove the JVSD component from the User
> >> Guide's
> >> > > > Tools
> >> > > > > and Modules section.
> >> > > > > Could go on the Wiki, could go in an appendix. We'll see what
> >> > emerges.
> >> > > > > Any favorites among the readers of this thread?
> >> > > > > Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <jblum@pivotal.io
> >> > <javascript:;>
> >> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Truthfully, I don't think this is any different than API
> >> features
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > have
> >> > > > > > been annotated with "@Experimental" (e.g. LucenceService
> >> > > > > > <http://geode.incubator.apache.org/releases/latest/
> >> > > > > >
> javadoc/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneService.html>).
> >> > > > > > I.e. nothing is going to stop a user from trying to use a
> >> > > > > > feature/function/tool and searching for relevant information
> on
> >> how
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > use
> >> > > > > > it if they know it exists, either explicitly or implicitly.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > In fact, I would think it is advantageous if they know it does
> >> > exist,
> >> > > > > even
> >> > > > > > prior to an official release, so that feedback can be
> gathered.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > If it is not to be part of the "official" User Guide, perhaps
> a
> >> > Wiki
> >> > > > page
> >> > > > > > (other than the specification
> >> > > > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> >> > > > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode>
> >> > > > > > [1])
> >> > > > > > or better yet, a GitHub README page along with the source code
> >> if
> >> > > users
> >> > > > > are
> >> > > > > > given access to build and use the tool themselves.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > If part of the "official" User Guide (under tools), then
> >> perhaps a
> >> > > > > > "Experimental" label.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Food for thought.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > -John
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> >> > > > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Baker <
> >> abaker@pivotal.io
> >> > <javascript:;>
> >> > > > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is
> >> > included
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > source and binary release distributions will only confuse
> >> users.
> >> > > +1
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > removing.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Anthony
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <
> >> dbarnes@pivotal.io
> >> > <javascript:;>
> >> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
> >> > > > > > > > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html
> .
> >> > > > > > > > Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <
> >> klund@apache.org
> >> > <javascript:;>
> >> > > > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode
> >> 1.0
> >> > > > docs.
> >> > > > > > > Right
> >> > > > > > > >> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think
> the
> >> > docs
> >> > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > >> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future
> >> > features
> >> > > or
> >> > > > > > > features
> >> > > > > > > >> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that
> >> would
> >> > > > > > probably
> >> > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > >> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > >> Kirk
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
> >> > > > > > > jmcallister@pivotal.io <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <
> >> > > dbarnes@pivotal.io <javascript:;>
> >> > > > <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs?
> The
> >> > > current
> >> > > > > > > >> writeup
> >> > > > > > > >>> is
> >> > > > > > > >>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned
> that
> >> > it's
> >> > > > not
> >> > > > > > > >> fully
> >> > > > > > > >>>> baked and we don't support it".
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for
> >> 1.0.0?
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <
> >> > > dsmith@pivotal.io <javascript:;>
> >> > > > <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0
> at
> >> > this
> >> > > > > point,
> >> > > > > > > >>>> because
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0
> >> > release
> >> > > > more
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency.
> >> But I
> >> > > > think
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > >>>> should
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to
> >> make
> >> > it
> >> > > > > easier
> >> > > > > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> -Dan
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > -John
> >> > > > > > 503-504-8657
> >> > > > > > john.blum10101 (skype)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -John
> > 503-504-8657
> > john.blum10101 (skype)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -John
> 503-504-8657
> john.blum10101 (skype)
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io>.
And by Wiki, I mean GitHub's Wiki associated with the (source code)
Repository. Between GitHub Wiki and README, README wins every time for
reason previously mentioned.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:28 PM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Personally, as a engineer, I am more of a fan of the GitHub README (or
> even Wiki), rather than a separate site. A lot easier for users to update
> (submit a PR).
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Kirk Lund <ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > If it isn't on develop or planned for release, then I vote for removing
>> it
>> > from the user guide altogether. I like the recommendation to keep this
>> and
>> > similar (non-develop branch) information on the wiki, so the community
>> can
>> > still easily access it.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:51 PM Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
>> <javascript:;>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > JVSD isn't labeled as Experimental because it isn't even on develop
>> or in
>> > > part of any Geode release candidate. As far as I know, it exists only
>> on
>> > an
>> > > incomplete and out-of-date feature branch. Hence, my vote is to remove
>> > any
>> > > mention of it from the docs until it merges to develop or at a minimum
>> > gets
>> > > updated (rebased) from develop (or M3).
>> > >
>> > > Has anyone done any rebasing or other work on the JVSD branch that I'm
>> > not
>> > > aware of?
>> > >
>> > > -Kirk
>> > >
>> > > On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Swapnil Bawaskar <
>> sbawaskar@pivotal.io
>> > <javascript:;>>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I would vote for including it as an "experimental" feature.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
>> > <javascript:;>
>> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Process for handling Experimental docs is still being hammered
>> out.
>> > > > Common
>> > > > > element among working scenarios is isolation from the body of the
>> > User
>> > > > > Guide proper, so I'll remove the JVSD component from the User
>> Guide's
>> > > > Tools
>> > > > > and Modules section.
>> > > > > Could go on the Wiki, could go in an appendix. We'll see what
>> > emerges.
>> > > > > Any favorites among the readers of this thread?
>> > > > > Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <jblum@pivotal.io
>> > <javascript:;>
>> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Truthfully, I don't think this is any different than API
>> features
>> > > that
>> > > > > have
>> > > > > > been annotated with "@Experimental" (e.g. LucenceService
>> > > > > > <http://geode.incubator.apache.org/releases/latest/
>> > > > > > javadoc/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneService.html>).
>> > > > > > I.e. nothing is going to stop a user from trying to use a
>> > > > > > feature/function/tool and searching for relevant information on
>> how
>> > > to
>> > > > > use
>> > > > > > it if they know it exists, either explicitly or implicitly.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > In fact, I would think it is advantageous if they know it does
>> > exist,
>> > > > > even
>> > > > > > prior to an official release, so that feedback can be gathered.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If it is not to be part of the "official" User Guide, perhaps a
>> > Wiki
>> > > > page
>> > > > > > (other than the specification
>> > > > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
>> > > > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode>
>> > > > > > [1])
>> > > > > > or better yet, a GitHub README page along with the source code
>> if
>> > > users
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > given access to build and use the tool themselves.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If part of the "official" User Guide (under tools), then
>> perhaps a
>> > > > > > "Experimental" label.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Food for thought.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -John
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
>> > > > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Baker <
>> abaker@pivotal.io
>> > <javascript:;>
>> > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is
>> > included
>> > > > in
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > source and binary release distributions will only confuse
>> users.
>> > > +1
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > removing.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Anthony
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <
>> dbarnes@pivotal.io
>> > <javascript:;>
>> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
>> > > > > > > > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html.
>> > > > > > > > Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <
>> klund@apache.org
>> > <javascript:;>
>> > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode
>> 1.0
>> > > > docs.
>> > > > > > > Right
>> > > > > > > >> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the
>> > docs
>> > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > >> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future
>> > features
>> > > or
>> > > > > > > features
>> > > > > > > >> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that
>> would
>> > > > > > probably
>> > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > >> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
>> > > > > > > >> Kirk
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
>> > > > > > > jmcallister@pivotal.io <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <
>> > > dbarnes@pivotal.io <javascript:;>
>> > > > <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The
>> > > current
>> > > > > > > >> writeup
>> > > > > > > >>> is
>> > > > > > > >>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that
>> > it's
>> > > > not
>> > > > > > > >> fully
>> > > > > > > >>>> baked and we don't support it".
>> > > > > > > >>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for
>> 1.0.0?
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <
>> > > dsmith@pivotal.io <javascript:;>
>> > > > <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at
>> > this
>> > > > > point,
>> > > > > > > >>>> because
>> > > > > > > >>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0
>> > release
>> > > > more
>> > > > > > > >>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency.
>> But I
>> > > > think
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > >>>> should
>> > > > > > > >>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to
>> make
>> > it
>> > > > > easier
>> > > > > > > >> for
>> > > > > > > >>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> -Dan
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > -John
>> > > > > > 503-504-8657
>> > > > > > john.blum10101 (skype)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -John
> 503-504-8657
> john.blum10101 (skype)
>
--
-John
503-504-8657
john.blum10101 (skype)
Re: jvsd
Posted by John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io>.
Personally, as a engineer, I am more of a fan of the GitHub README (or even
Wiki), rather than a separate site. A lot easier for users to update
(submit a PR).
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Kirk Lund <ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > If it isn't on develop or planned for release, then I vote for removing
> it
> > from the user guide altogether. I like the recommendation to keep this
> and
> > similar (non-develop branch) information on the wiki, so the community
> can
> > still easily access it.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:51 PM Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > JVSD isn't labeled as Experimental because it isn't even on develop or
> in
> > > part of any Geode release candidate. As far as I know, it exists only
> on
> > an
> > > incomplete and out-of-date feature branch. Hence, my vote is to remove
> > any
> > > mention of it from the docs until it merges to develop or at a minimum
> > gets
> > > updated (rebased) from develop (or M3).
> > >
> > > Has anyone done any rebasing or other work on the JVSD branch that I'm
> > not
> > > aware of?
> > >
> > > -Kirk
> > >
> > > On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Swapnil Bawaskar <
> sbawaskar@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would vote for including it as an "experimental" feature.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Process for handling Experimental docs is still being hammered out.
> > > > Common
> > > > > element among working scenarios is isolation from the body of the
> > User
> > > > > Guide proper, so I'll remove the JVSD component from the User
> Guide's
> > > > Tools
> > > > > and Modules section.
> > > > > Could go on the Wiki, could go in an appendix. We'll see what
> > emerges.
> > > > > Any favorites among the readers of this thread?
> > > > > Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <jblum@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Truthfully, I don't think this is any different than API features
> > > that
> > > > > have
> > > > > > been annotated with "@Experimental" (e.g. LucenceService
> > > > > > <http://geode.incubator.apache.org/releases/latest/
> > > > > > javadoc/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneService.html>).
> > > > > > I.e. nothing is going to stop a user from trying to use a
> > > > > > feature/function/tool and searching for relevant information on
> how
> > > to
> > > > > use
> > > > > > it if they know it exists, either explicitly or implicitly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact, I would think it is advantageous if they know it does
> > exist,
> > > > > even
> > > > > > prior to an official release, so that feedback can be gathered.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it is not to be part of the "official" User Guide, perhaps a
> > Wiki
> > > > page
> > > > > > (other than the specification
> > > > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > > > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode>
> > > > > > [1])
> > > > > > or better yet, a GitHub README page along with the source code if
> > > users
> > > > > are
> > > > > > given access to build and use the tool themselves.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If part of the "official" User Guide (under tools), then perhaps
> a
> > > > > > "Experimental" label.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Food for thought.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -John
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > > > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Baker <
> abaker@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is
> > included
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > source and binary release distributions will only confuse
> users.
> > > +1
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > removing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anthony
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
> > > > > > > > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html.
> > > > > > > > Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <
> klund@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode
> 1.0
> > > > docs.
> > > > > > > Right
> > > > > > > >> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the
> > docs
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future
> > features
> > > or
> > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > >> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that
> would
> > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> Kirk
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
> > > > > > > jmcallister@pivotal.io <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <
> > > dbarnes@pivotal.io <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The
> > > current
> > > > > > > >> writeup
> > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > >>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that
> > it's
> > > > not
> > > > > > > >> fully
> > > > > > > >>>> baked and we don't support it".
> > > > > > > >>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <
> > > dsmith@pivotal.io <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at
> > this
> > > > > point,
> > > > > > > >>>> because
> > > > > > > >>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0
> > release
> > > > more
> > > > > > > >>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > > > >>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make
> > it
> > > > > easier
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> -Dan
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > -John
> > > > > > 503-504-8657
> > > > > > john.blum10101 (skype)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
-John
503-504-8657
john.blum10101 (skype)
Re: jvsd
Posted by Kirk Lund <ki...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> If it isn't on develop or planned for release, then I vote for removing it
> from the user guide altogether. I like the recommendation to keep this and
> similar (non-develop branch) information on the wiki, so the community can
> still easily access it.
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:51 PM Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > JVSD isn't labeled as Experimental because it isn't even on develop or in
> > part of any Geode release candidate. As far as I know, it exists only on
> an
> > incomplete and out-of-date feature branch. Hence, my vote is to remove
> any
> > mention of it from the docs until it merges to develop or at a minimum
> gets
> > updated (rebased) from develop (or M3).
> >
> > Has anyone done any rebasing or other work on the JVSD branch that I'm
> not
> > aware of?
> >
> > -Kirk
> >
> > On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawaskar@pivotal.io
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would vote for including it as an "experimental" feature.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Process for handling Experimental docs is still being hammered out.
> > > Common
> > > > element among working scenarios is isolation from the body of the
> User
> > > > Guide proper, so I'll remove the JVSD component from the User Guide's
> > > Tools
> > > > and Modules section.
> > > > Could go on the Wiki, could go in an appendix. We'll see what
> emerges.
> > > > Any favorites among the readers of this thread?
> > > > Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <jblum@pivotal.io
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Truthfully, I don't think this is any different than API features
> > that
> > > > have
> > > > > been annotated with "@Experimental" (e.g. LucenceService
> > > > > <http://geode.incubator.apache.org/releases/latest/
> > > > > javadoc/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneService.html>).
> > > > > I.e. nothing is going to stop a user from trying to use a
> > > > > feature/function/tool and searching for relevant information on how
> > to
> > > > use
> > > > > it if they know it exists, either explicitly or implicitly.
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact, I would think it is advantageous if they know it does
> exist,
> > > > even
> > > > > prior to an official release, so that feedback can be gathered.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it is not to be part of the "official" User Guide, perhaps a
> Wiki
> > > page
> > > > > (other than the specification
> > > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode>
> > > > > [1])
> > > > > or better yet, a GitHub README page along with the source code if
> > users
> > > > are
> > > > > given access to build and use the tool themselves.
> > > > >
> > > > > If part of the "official" User Guide (under tools), then perhaps a
> > > > > "Experimental" label.
> > > > >
> > > > > Food for thought.
> > > > >
> > > > > -John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Baker <abaker@pivotal.io
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is
> included
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > source and binary release distributions will only confuse users.
> > +1
> > > > for
> > > > > > removing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anthony
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
> > > > > > > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html.
> > > > > > > Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode 1.0
> > > docs.
> > > > > > Right
> > > > > > >> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the
> docs
> > > > > should
> > > > > > >> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future
> features
> > or
> > > > > > features
> > > > > > >> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that would
> > > > > probably
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> Kirk
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
> > > > > > jmcallister@pivotal.io <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <
> > dbarnes@pivotal.io <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The
> > current
> > > > > > >> writeup
> > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > >>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that
> it's
> > > not
> > > > > > >> fully
> > > > > > >>>> baked and we don't support it".
> > > > > > >>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <
> > dsmith@pivotal.io <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at
> this
> > > > point,
> > > > > > >>>> because
> > > > > > >>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0
> release
> > > more
> > > > > > >>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I
> > > think
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > > >>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make
> it
> > > > easier
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> -Dan
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -John
> > > > > 503-504-8657
> > > > > john.blum10101 (skype)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>.
If it isn't on develop or planned for release, then I vote for removing it
from the user guide altogether. I like the recommendation to keep this and
similar (non-develop branch) information on the wiki, so the community can
still easily access it.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:51 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> JVSD isn't labeled as Experimental because it isn't even on develop or in
> part of any Geode release candidate. As far as I know, it exists only on an
> incomplete and out-of-date feature branch. Hence, my vote is to remove any
> mention of it from the docs until it merges to develop or at a minimum gets
> updated (rebased) from develop (or M3).
>
> Has anyone done any rebasing or other work on the JVSD branch that I'm not
> aware of?
>
> -Kirk
>
> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > I would vote for including it as an "experimental" feature.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > Process for handling Experimental docs is still being hammered out.
> > Common
> > > element among working scenarios is isolation from the body of the User
> > > Guide proper, so I'll remove the JVSD component from the User Guide's
> > Tools
> > > and Modules section.
> > > Could go on the Wiki, could go in an appendix. We'll see what emerges.
> > > Any favorites among the readers of this thread?
> > > Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <jblum@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Truthfully, I don't think this is any different than API features
> that
> > > have
> > > > been annotated with "@Experimental" (e.g. LucenceService
> > > > <http://geode.incubator.apache.org/releases/latest/
> > > > javadoc/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneService.html>).
> > > > I.e. nothing is going to stop a user from trying to use a
> > > > feature/function/tool and searching for relevant information on how
> to
> > > use
> > > > it if they know it exists, either explicitly or implicitly.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, I would think it is advantageous if they know it does exist,
> > > even
> > > > prior to an official release, so that feedback can be gathered.
> > > >
> > > > If it is not to be part of the "official" User Guide, perhaps a Wiki
> > page
> > > > (other than the specification
> > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode>
> > > > [1])
> > > > or better yet, a GitHub README page along with the source code if
> users
> > > are
> > > > given access to build and use the tool themselves.
> > > >
> > > > If part of the "official" User Guide (under tools), then perhaps a
> > > > "Experimental" label.
> > > >
> > > > Food for thought.
> > > >
> > > > -John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Baker <abaker@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is included
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > source and binary release distributions will only confuse users.
> +1
> > > for
> > > > > removing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anthony
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
> > > > > > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html.
> > > > > > Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode 1.0
> > docs.
> > > > > Right
> > > > > >> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the docs
> > > > should
> > > > > >> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future features
> or
> > > > > features
> > > > > >> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that would
> > > > probably
> > > > > be
> > > > > >> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> Kirk
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
> > > > > jmcallister@pivotal.io <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <
> dbarnes@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The
> current
> > > > > >> writeup
> > > > > >>> is
> > > > > >>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that it's
> > not
> > > > > >> fully
> > > > > >>>> baked and we don't support it".
> > > > > >>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <
> dsmith@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at this
> > > point,
> > > > > >>>> because
> > > > > >>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0 release
> > more
> > > > > >>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I
> > think
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > >>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make it
> > > easier
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> -Dan
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -John
> > > > 503-504-8657
> > > > john.blum10101 (skype)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org>.
JVSD isn't labeled as Experimental because it isn't even on develop or in
part of any Geode release candidate. As far as I know, it exists only on an
incomplete and out-of-date feature branch. Hence, my vote is to remove any
mention of it from the docs until it merges to develop or at a minimum gets
updated (rebased) from develop (or M3).
Has anyone done any rebasing or other work on the JVSD branch that I'm not
aware of?
-Kirk
On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> I would vote for including it as an "experimental" feature.
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Process for handling Experimental docs is still being hammered out.
> Common
> > element among working scenarios is isolation from the body of the User
> > Guide proper, so I'll remove the JVSD component from the User Guide's
> Tools
> > and Modules section.
> > Could go on the Wiki, could go in an appendix. We'll see what emerges.
> > Any favorites among the readers of this thread?
> > Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <jblum@pivotal.io
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > Truthfully, I don't think this is any different than API features that
> > have
> > > been annotated with "@Experimental" (e.g. LucenceService
> > > <http://geode.incubator.apache.org/releases/latest/
> > > javadoc/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneService.html>).
> > > I.e. nothing is going to stop a user from trying to use a
> > > feature/function/tool and searching for relevant information on how to
> > use
> > > it if they know it exists, either explicitly or implicitly.
> > >
> > > In fact, I would think it is advantageous if they know it does exist,
> > even
> > > prior to an official release, so that feedback can be gathered.
> > >
> > > If it is not to be part of the "official" User Guide, perhaps a Wiki
> page
> > > (other than the specification
> > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode>
> > > [1])
> > > or better yet, a GitHub README page along with the source code if users
> > are
> > > given access to build and use the tool themselves.
> > >
> > > If part of the "official" User Guide (under tools), then perhaps a
> > > "Experimental" label.
> > >
> > > Food for thought.
> > >
> > > -John
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Baker <abaker@pivotal.io
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is included
> in
> > > the
> > > > source and binary release distributions will only confuse users. +1
> > for
> > > > removing.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > >
> > > > > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
> > > > > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html.
> > > > > Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode 1.0
> docs.
> > > > Right
> > > > >> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the docs
> > > should
> > > > >> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future features or
> > > > features
> > > > >> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that would
> > > probably
> > > > be
> > > > >> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Kirk
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
> > > > jmcallister@pivotal.io <javascript:;>>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> <javascript:;>
> > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The current
> > > > >> writeup
> > > > >>> is
> > > > >>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that it's
> not
> > > > >> fully
> > > > >>>> baked and we don't support it".
> > > > >>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io
> <javascript:;>
> > > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at this
> > point,
> > > > >>>> because
> > > > >>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0 release
> more
> > > > >>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I
> think
> > > the
> > > > >>>> should
> > > > >>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make it
> > easier
> > > > >> for
> > > > >>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> -Dan
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -John
> > > 503-504-8657
> > > john.blum10101 (skype)
> > >
> >
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>.
I would vote for including it as an "experimental" feature.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Process for handling Experimental docs is still being hammered out. Common
> element among working scenarios is isolation from the body of the User
> Guide proper, so I'll remove the JVSD component from the User Guide's Tools
> and Modules section.
> Could go on the Wiki, could go in an appendix. We'll see what emerges.
> Any favorites among the readers of this thread?
> Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Truthfully, I don't think this is any different than API features that
> have
> > been annotated with "@Experimental" (e.g. LucenceService
> > <http://geode.incubator.apache.org/releases/latest/
> > javadoc/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneService.html>).
> > I.e. nothing is going to stop a user from trying to use a
> > feature/function/tool and searching for relevant information on how to
> use
> > it if they know it exists, either explicitly or implicitly.
> >
> > In fact, I would think it is advantageous if they know it does exist,
> even
> > prior to an official release, so that feedback can be gathered.
> >
> > If it is not to be part of the "official" User Guide, perhaps a Wiki page
> > (other than the specification
> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode>
> > [1])
> > or better yet, a GitHub README page along with the source code if users
> are
> > given access to build and use the tool themselves.
> >
> > If part of the "official" User Guide (under tools), then perhaps a
> > "Experimental" label.
> >
> > Food for thought.
> >
> > -John
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is included in
> > the
> > > source and binary release distributions will only confuse users. +1
> for
> > > removing.
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > > > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
> > > > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html.
> > > > Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode 1.0 docs.
> > > Right
> > > >> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the docs
> > should
> > > >> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
> > > >>
> > > >> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future features or
> > > features
> > > >> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that would
> > probably
> > > be
> > > >> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Kirk
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
> > > jmcallister@pivotal.io>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The current
> > > >> writeup
> > > >>> is
> > > >>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that it's not
> > > >> fully
> > > >>>> baked and we don't support it".
> > > >>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io
> > > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at this
> point,
> > > >>>> because
> > > >>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0 release more
> > > >>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I think
> > the
> > > >>>> should
> > > >>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make it
> easier
> > > >> for
> > > >>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> -Dan
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -John
> > 503-504-8657
> > john.blum10101 (skype)
> >
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io>.
Process for handling Experimental docs is still being hammered out. Common
element among working scenarios is isolation from the body of the User
Guide proper, so I'll remove the JVSD component from the User Guide's Tools
and Modules section.
Could go on the Wiki, could go in an appendix. We'll see what emerges.
Any favorites among the readers of this thread?
Silence = "Docs group gets to pick"
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Truthfully, I don't think this is any different than API features that have
> been annotated with "@Experimental" (e.g. LucenceService
> <http://geode.incubator.apache.org/releases/latest/
> javadoc/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneService.html>).
> I.e. nothing is going to stop a user from trying to use a
> feature/function/tool and searching for relevant information on how to use
> it if they know it exists, either explicitly or implicitly.
>
> In fact, I would think it is advantageous if they know it does exist, even
> prior to an official release, so that feedback can be gathered.
>
> If it is not to be part of the "official" User Guide, perhaps a Wiki page
> (other than the specification
> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode>
> [1])
> or better yet, a GitHub README page along with the source code if users are
> given access to build and use the tool themselves.
>
> If part of the "official" User Guide (under tools), then perhaps a
> "Experimental" label.
>
> Food for thought.
>
> -John
>
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is included in
> the
> > source and binary release distributions will only confuse users. +1 for
> > removing.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> > > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
> > > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html.
> > > Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode 1.0 docs.
> > Right
> > >> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the docs
> should
> > >> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
> > >>
> > >> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future features or
> > features
> > >> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that would
> probably
> > be
> > >> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Kirk
> > >>
> > >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
> > jmcallister@pivotal.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The current
> > >> writeup
> > >>> is
> > >>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that it's not
> > >> fully
> > >>>> baked and we don't support it".
> > >>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io
> > >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at this point,
> > >>>> because
> > >>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0 release more
> > >>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I think
> the
> > >>>> should
> > >>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make it easier
> > >> for
> > >>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -Dan
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> -John
> 503-504-8657
> john.blum10101 (skype)
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io>.
Truthfully, I don't think this is any different than API features that have
been annotated with "@Experimental" (e.g. LucenceService
<http://geode.incubator.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/lucene/LuceneService.html>).
I.e. nothing is going to stop a user from trying to use a
feature/function/tool and searching for relevant information on how to use
it if they know it exists, either explicitly or implicitly.
In fact, I would think it is advantageous if they know it does exist, even
prior to an official release, so that feedback can be gathered.
If it is not to be part of the "official" User Guide, perhaps a Wiki page
(other than the specification
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode>
[1])
or better yet, a GitHub README page along with the source code if users are
given access to build and use the tool themselves.
If part of the "official" User Guide (under tools), then perhaps a
"Experimental" label.
Food for thought.
-John
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61309918&src=contextnavpagetreemode
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is included in the
> source and binary release distributions will only confuse users. +1 for
> removing.
>
> Anthony
>
> > On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
> > http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html.
> > Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode 1.0 docs.
> Right
> >> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the docs should
> >> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
> >>
> >> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future features or
> features
> >> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that would probably
> be
> >> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kirk
> >>
> >> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <
> jmcallister@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The current
> >> writeup
> >>> is
> >>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that it's not
> >> fully
> >>>> baked and we don't support it".
> >>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io
> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at this point,
> >>>> because
> >>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0 release more
> >>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I think the
> >>>> should
> >>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make it easier
> >> for
> >>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Dan
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
--
-John
503-504-8657
john.blum10101 (skype)
Re: jvsd
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
I think that providing documentation for jvsd before it is included in the source and binary release distributions will only confuse users. +1 for removing.
Anthony
> On Sep 22, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
> http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html.
> Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode 1.0 docs. Right
>> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the docs should
>> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
>>
>> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future features or features
>> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that would probably be
>> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kirk
>>
>> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The current
>> writeup
>>> is
>>>> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that it's not
>> fully
>>>> baked and we don't support it".
>>>> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at this point,
>>>> because
>>>>> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0 release more
>>>>> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I think the
>>>> should
>>>>> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make it easier
>> for
>>>>> people to get jVSD and play with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Dan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: jvsd
Posted by Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io>.
JVSD has appeared in the Geode user manual since M2. See
http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/docs/tools_modules/jvsd.html.
Kirk, are you recommending that we remove this?
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode 1.0 docs. Right
> now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the docs should
> only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
>
> If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future features or features
> currently looking for contributors/developers, then that would probably be
> an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
>
> Thanks,
> Kirk
>
> On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Bumping this. Any thoughts?
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The current
> writeup
> > is
> > > essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that it's not
> fully
> > > baked and we don't support it".
> > > Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at this point,
> > > because
> > > > it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0 release more
> > > > complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I think the
> > > should
> > > > try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make it easier
> for
> > > > people to get jVSD and play with it.
> > > >
> > > > -Dan
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org>.
I would recommend not mentioning jVSD at all in the Geode 1.0 docs. Right
now it's just a Jira ticket and feature branch. I think the docs should
only cover what's in Geode 1.0.
If there's some doc or wiki page about proposed future features or features
currently looking for contributors/developers, then that would probably be
an appropriate place to mention jVSD.
Thanks,
Kirk
On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> Bumping this. Any thoughts?
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <dbarnes@pivotal.io
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The current writeup
> is
> > essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that it's not fully
> > baked and we don't support it".
> > Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at this point,
> > because
> > > it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0 release more
> > > complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I think the
> > should
> > > try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make it easier for
> > > people to get jVSD and play with it.
> > >
> > > -Dan
> > >
> >
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>.
Bumping this. Any thoughts?
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The current writeup is
> essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that it's not fully
> baked and we don't support it".
> Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at this point,
> because
> > it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0 release more
> > complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I think the
> should
> > try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make it easier for
> > people to get jVSD and play with it.
> >
> > -Dan
> >
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by Dave Barnes <db...@pivotal.io>.
To what degree should jVSD be mentioned in the docs? The current writeup is
essentially "go get it if you want it, but be warned that it's not fully
baked and we don't support it".
Would that still be the appropriate jVSD policy for 1.0.0?
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at this point, because
> it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0 release more
> complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I think the should
> try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make it easier for
> people to get jVSD and play with it.
>
> -Dan
>
Re: jvsd
Posted by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>.
I don't think we should try to include jVSD in 1.0.0 at this point, because
it introduces dependencies that might make the 1.0.0 release more
complicated such as the MultiAxisChartFX dependency. But I think the should
try to get it to develop sooner rather than later to make it easier for
people to get jVSD and play with it.
-Dan