You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Esteban Gutierrez <es...@cloudera.com> on 2014/07/29 22:09:06 UTC
Incorrect docs in 0.98.3 and 0.98.4
Hi all,
Is not a big deal but while doing some internal housekeeping I noticed that
in 0.98.3 and and 0.98.4 don't have the latest docs that have been included
in previous releases. In previous 0.98 point releases the docs were a copy
from trunk, but for 0.98.3 and 0.98.4 the docs are the vanilla docs.
cheers,
esteban.
--
Cloudera, Inc.
Re: Incorrect docs in 0.98.3 and 0.98.4
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
For 0.98.5RC0 I updated docs in source prior to generating the source
tarball, so they will be consistent across source and binary artifacts. If
there is some other way you'd like to see this done, please suggest.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Hm.. so previously we release the trunk docs with the 0.98 releases?
> this
> > seems strange. I would think 0.98 docs would be generated from the 0.98
> > release branch's branch.
> >
> >
> We have not done the work to keep up version-specific documentation. The
> differences have been too minor to matter and if version specific doc at
> all, an effort has been made to call it out explicitly with 'since
> hbase-X.X.X'.
>
> 0.94 though has its own API and doc generated from a (old now) build off
> 0.94 branch.
>
>
>
> > It seems reasonable if in our post-git releases we have the source for
> the
> > docs in the source tarballs but not the build docs. The built docs
> > however, are in the ready-to-use release tarballs and correspond to the
> > release. Is this the case now?
> >
> > Doing this becomes more important because the docs will likely change due
> > to deployment changes with potentially different rules of thumb etc for
> > 0.98->1.0 vs what will be 2.0 releases.
> >
>
>
> Agree. When 2.0 doc starts to diverge from 1.0 doc in a significant way,
> lets move to keep up two different docs -- a branch-1 and a branch-2.
>
> I don't see a need for our doing that yet.
>
> St.Ack
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: Incorrect docs in 0.98.3 and 0.98.4
Posted by Esteban Gutierrez <es...@cloudera.com>.
That makes sense St.Ack and probably do what Jon suggested about keeping
the docs build outside of the source tarball.
thanks,
esteban.
--
Cloudera, Inc.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Hm.. so previously we release the trunk docs with the 0.98 releases?
> this
> > seems strange. I would think 0.98 docs would be generated from the 0.98
> > release branch's branch.
> >
> >
> We have not done the work to keep up version-specific documentation. The
> differences have been too minor to matter and if version specific doc at
> all, an effort has been made to call it out explicitly with 'since
> hbase-X.X.X'.
>
> 0.94 though has its own API and doc generated from a (old now) build off
> 0.94 branch.
>
>
>
> > It seems reasonable if in our post-git releases we have the source for
> the
> > docs in the source tarballs but not the build docs. The built docs
> > however, are in the ready-to-use release tarballs and correspond to the
> > release. Is this the case now?
> >
> > Doing this becomes more important because the docs will likely change due
> > to deployment changes with potentially different rules of thumb etc for
> > 0.98->1.0 vs what will be 2.0 releases.
> >
>
>
> Agree. When 2.0 doc starts to diverge from 1.0 doc in a significant way,
> lets move to keep up two different docs -- a branch-1 and a branch-2.
>
> I don't see a need for our doing that yet.
>
> St.Ack
>
Re: Incorrect docs in 0.98.3 and 0.98.4
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Hm.. so previously we release the trunk docs with the 0.98 releases? this
> seems strange. I would think 0.98 docs would be generated from the 0.98
> release branch's branch.
>
>
We have not done the work to keep up version-specific documentation. The
differences have been too minor to matter and if version specific doc at
all, an effort has been made to call it out explicitly with 'since
hbase-X.X.X'.
0.94 though has its own API and doc generated from a (old now) build off
0.94 branch.
> It seems reasonable if in our post-git releases we have the source for the
> docs in the source tarballs but not the build docs. The built docs
> however, are in the ready-to-use release tarballs and correspond to the
> release. Is this the case now?
>
> Doing this becomes more important because the docs will likely change due
> to deployment changes with potentially different rules of thumb etc for
> 0.98->1.0 vs what will be 2.0 releases.
>
Agree. When 2.0 doc starts to diverge from 1.0 doc in a significant way,
lets move to keep up two different docs -- a branch-1 and a branch-2.
I don't see a need for our doing that yet.
St.Ack
Re: Incorrect docs in 0.98.3 and 0.98.4
Posted by Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com>.
Hm.. so previously we release the trunk docs with the 0.98 releases? this
seems strange. I would think 0.98 docs would be generated from the 0.98
release branch's branch.
It seems reasonable if in our post-git releases we have the source for the
docs in the source tarballs but not the build docs. The built docs
however, are in the ready-to-use release tarballs and correspond to the
release. Is this the case now?
Doing this becomes more important because the docs will likely change due
to deployment changes with potentially different rules of thumb etc for
0.98->1.0 vs what will be 2.0 releases.
Jon.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> ... And the reason for doing it that way is, AFAIK, a source release
> artifact should correspond exactly to a SCM revision. With SVN a tag was a
> branch was a tag, with git I think to commit back a copy of docs from trunk
> to branch, I'd need to create a branch for the release and push it?
> Thoughts?
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks. That's my fault. 0.98.2 was the last release made using SVN. I
> > would create a branch in SVN for the release tag and commit the copy of
> > docs back from trunk to the branch, then build the source tarball from
> > there. Now I think the source tarball is lacking latest docs but the
> binary
> > tarballs will have them, because first I build the source tarball from a
> > git checkout, then munge POMs and copy back docs, then generate binary
> > artifacts.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Esteban Gutierrez <esteban@cloudera.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Is not a big deal but while doing some internal housekeeping I noticed
> >> that
> >> in 0.98.3 and and 0.98.4 don't have the latest docs that have been
> >> included
> >> in previous releases. In previous 0.98 point releases the docs were a
> copy
> >> from trunk, but for 0.98.3 and 0.98.4 the docs are the vanilla docs.
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> esteban.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cloudera, Inc.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh
Re: Incorrect docs in 0.98.3 and 0.98.4
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
... And the reason for doing it that way is, AFAIK, a source release
artifact should correspond exactly to a SCM revision. With SVN a tag was a
branch was a tag, with git I think to commit back a copy of docs from trunk
to branch, I'd need to create a branch for the release and push it?
Thoughts?
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks. That's my fault. 0.98.2 was the last release made using SVN. I
> would create a branch in SVN for the release tag and commit the copy of
> docs back from trunk to the branch, then build the source tarball from
> there. Now I think the source tarball is lacking latest docs but the binary
> tarballs will have them, because first I build the source tarball from a
> git checkout, then munge POMs and copy back docs, then generate binary
> artifacts.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Esteban Gutierrez <es...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Is not a big deal but while doing some internal housekeeping I noticed
>> that
>> in 0.98.3 and and 0.98.4 don't have the latest docs that have been
>> included
>> in previous releases. In previous 0.98 point releases the docs were a copy
>> from trunk, but for 0.98.3 and 0.98.4 the docs are the vanilla docs.
>>
>> cheers,
>> esteban.
>>
>> --
>> Cloudera, Inc.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: Incorrect docs in 0.98.3 and 0.98.4
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Thanks. That's my fault. 0.98.2 was the last release made using SVN. I
would create a branch in SVN for the release tag and commit the copy of
docs back from trunk to the branch, then build the source tarball from
there. Now I think the source tarball is lacking latest docs but the binary
tarballs will have them, because first I build the source tarball from a
git checkout, then munge POMs and copy back docs, then generate binary
artifacts.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Esteban Gutierrez <es...@cloudera.com>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is not a big deal but while doing some internal housekeeping I noticed that
> in 0.98.3 and and 0.98.4 don't have the latest docs that have been included
> in previous releases. In previous 0.98 point releases the docs were a copy
> from trunk, but for 0.98.3 and 0.98.4 the docs are the vanilla docs.
>
> cheers,
> esteban.
>
> --
> Cloudera, Inc.
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)