Re: Re: [FOR REVIEW] Content Pipeline Process wiki

[Chris Thornett <ch...@constantia.io>]

To tie this up, I've added the changes to the process that Mick flagged -
thanks! If there are any further alterations please let me know. If there
aren't any more improvements, I'll assume, using lazy consensus, that
everything is good if I don't hear back by EoW (4 March).

Thanks all!

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 8:09 PM Chris Thornett <ch...@constantia.io> wrote:

> I must admit, I've not dived into Jira's much yet (I've done one, I
> think), but if you think a separate Jira issue type would help, I'm all for
> it, Mick!
>
> *Topic review*
> One thing that I'd like to highlight from the content process wiki page is
> the need to review the topics we would like to cover as a community. I'm
> particularly referring to the technical/feature topics and the correct
> editorial approach we want to take. The list on the Google Doc (the first
> tab) was something I inherited about a year ago and I expect it needs
> refreshing. It would be great to see a few knowledgeable community members
> hack on the list or, if it's easier, I can arrange a quick call,
> individually or as a group, to flesh out what people think we should cover
> in 2022:
> Here's the doc (note: set to comment for all now it's in the wild on the
> wiki, but Slack me if you need edit rights):
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bMRNB0KJRN9WsMcfoX8BFwuFDX56QRBKpbQ0N8Zvy5k/edit?pli=1#gid=386721509
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 4:09 PM Chris Thornett <ch...@constantia.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Mick! I’ll make those amends.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2022/02/17 14:38:12 Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>>
>> > > * Content pipeline overview
>>
>> > >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Awesome stuff Chris!
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Under the "Pull Request Approval" section there's some inaccuracies, if
>> we
>>
>> > presume staging == cassandra.staged.apache.org.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The content is pushed to staging *after* it is committed to trunk (and
>> is
>>
>> > automatic). The check on staging should not be used as part of the
>> review
>>
>> > process, just a final sanity check before pushing live. Step (2) is
>> (when
>>
>> > needed) a local docker run to do final QA testing before the PR is
>> approved
>>
>> > and committed to trunk.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > In exceptional cases a committer can commit the generated content to the
>>
>> > asf-staging branch without committing to trunk. But this would only be
>> when
>>
>> > local rendering is not expected to match cassandra.staged.apache.org
>> (which
>>
>> > shouldn't happen, but e.g. .htaccess)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Also worth noting, with step (2) involving "a local docker run to do
>> final
>>
>> > QA testing" this is waiting on some fixes where local generation isn't
>>
>> > identical to how CI is generating it: CASSANDRA-17374
>>
>> >
>>
>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>> Windows
>>
>>
>>
>