You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@kafka.apache.org by Aseem Bansal <as...@gmail.com> on 2015/07/31 19:15:02 UTC
KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Hi
When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git came up. That
would make contributing to docs much easier. I have contributed to
groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github could be useful.
Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a separate repo.
No need to mix docs and code.
I can try that out.
Thoughts?
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
Hi Kumar,
One note: we need to update the documentation on how to submit changes to
the website here:
http://kafka.apache.org/contributing.html
Ismael
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
wrote:
> Hi Guozhang,
>
> Our plan is to follow Gwen's suggested approach and migrate the existing
> svn site repo to new git repo.
>
> (1) Gwen's suggestion will help to us maintain latest docs in Kafka repo
> itself. We periodically need to copy these latest docs to site repo. I
> will submit patch for this.
>
> (2) svn repo -> git repo migration will help us to integrate site repo
> to git tooling/github. It will be easy to maintain the site repo and
> changes. So we have created new git repo for docs and need committer help
> to create a branch "asf-site".
>
> new git repo: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
>
> Hope this clears the confusion.
>
> Kumar
> I thought Gwen's suggestion was to us a separate folder in the same repo
> for docs instead of a separate branch, Gwen can correct me if I was wrong?
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Infra team created git repo for kafka site docs.
> >
> > Gwen/Guozhang,
> > Need your help to create a branch "asf-site" and copy the exiting
> > svn contents to that branch.
> >
> > git repo: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> >
> >
> >
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14709630#comment-14709630
> >
> > Kumar
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the number of tools
> > we
> > > need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the generated site, we
> can
> > > use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can watch for
> > changes
> > > on GitHub, etc.
> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy <kumar@nmsworks.co.in
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed further.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
> > > > 2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
> > > >
> > > > kumar
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us to
> fix
> > > > > occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round of
> > > voting.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so I'm
> > not
> > > > >> sure a
> > > > >> > new vote is required.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > So I think we have two different approaches here. The original
> > > > >> proposal
> > > > >> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo,
> > and
> > > > >> hence
> > > > >> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have
> > > > >> accumulated
> > > > >> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move
> > website
> > > > into
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel they prefer
> > > this
> > > > >> over
> > > > >> > > the previous approach I would like to call for another round
> of
> > > > >> voting.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Guozhang
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <
> > paliwalashish@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in
> > Flume.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move
> > > changes
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > svn to update website.
> > > > >> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes
> to
> > > > >> website
> > > > >> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked
> > on
> > > > is:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest
> > revision
> > > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > docs
> > > > >> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest
> > state
> > > > of
> > > > >> > code)
> > > > >> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification,
> > you
> > > > >> modify
> > > > >> > > all
> > > > >> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and
> > > committed
> > > > >> > > together
> > > > >> > > > > (ideally)
> > > > >> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release
> and
> > > > >> commit
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > SVN
> > > > >> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in
> earlier
> > > > docs.
> > > > >> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Nice to have:
> > > > >> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML.
> > Asciidoc
> > > is
> > > > >> > easier
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > edit and review.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > >
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an
> > > additional
> > > > >> step
> > > > >> > > > that
> > > > >> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >> Ismael
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >> > Hi all,
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and
> > > > website
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > >> same
> > > > >> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > Best,
> > > > >> > > > >> > Ismael
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > >> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving
> the
> > > > >> website
> > > > >> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in
> helping
> > > us
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > >> move
> > > > >> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >> Best,
> > > > >> > > > >> >> Ismael
> > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > >> gwen@confluent.io
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind
> :)
> > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > >> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can
> conclude
> > > > with
> > > > >> 3
> > > > >> > > > binding
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or
> > are
> > > we
> > > > >> > > looking
> > > > >> > > > >> for a
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> > > > >> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> > > > >> > > > neha@confluent.io>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It
> > helps
> > > > to
> > > > >> > keep
> > > > >> > > > both
> > > > >> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> > > > >> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be
> > to
> > > > code
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > more
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage
> > unit
> > > > >> tests
> > > > >> > > for
> > > > >> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > >> new
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the
> > > same.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example,
> how
> > > > would
> > > > >> > small
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live
> > > > >> documentation
> > > > >> > > occur
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> without
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> a
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > new
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang
> Wang
> > <
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping
> > one
> > > > git
> > > > >> > > > history of
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> /
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this
> > > > >> approach
> > > > >> > as
> > > > >> > > > well.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen
> > Shapira <
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit /
> > > > >> lower-barrier
> > > > >> > > > >> benefits.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which
> > > > decouples
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> documentation
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc
> > > directory,
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only
> > one
> > > > >> > version
> > > > >> > > of
> > > > >> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the
> > code.
> > > > >> > (unlike
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> current SVN
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc
> to
> > > HTML
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > PDF
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the
> > documentation
> > > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > new
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> release
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> to
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael
> > > Juma <
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous
> > > > >> discussion on
> > > > >> > > > moving
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as
> Jay
> > > > said.
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> > > would
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> like to
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the
> website
> > > > >> should be
> > > > >> > > > part
> > > > >> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > same
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball
> > > rolling.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and
> > > > website,
> > > > >> > which
> > > > >> > > > >> means:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs
> along
> > > > with
> > > > >> > > > relevant
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are
> > updated
> > > > at
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > same
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> time
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the
> > relevant
> > > > >> code
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only
> > > > changes
> > > > >> > > > (smaller
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> repo,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > less
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the
> > code
> > > > Git
> > > > >> > > > history
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting
> > the
> > > > code
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem
> > > > Bansal
> > > > >> <
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364
> > migrating
> > > > docs
> > > > >> > from
> > > > >> > > > svn
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> to git
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > came
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much
> > > > >> easier. I
> > > > >> > > have
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think
> > > having
> > > > >> > mirror
> > > > >> > > > on
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> github
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > could
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some
> good
> > > > >> reason
> > > > >> > it
> > > > >> > > > >> should
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> be a
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> --
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > thanks
> > > > >> > > > ashish
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > > > >> > > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > --
> > > > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>.
Thanks gwen.. I am working on remaining steps. I will update you on the
progress.
Regards,
Mani
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> OK, PR 171 is in, and the latest version of the docs is now in docs/
> directory of trunk!
>
> Next steps:
> 1. Follow up with infra on our github site
> 2. Update the docs contribution guide
> 3. Update the release guide (since we are releasing docs as part of our
> release artifacts)
>
> Mani, I assume you are on those?
> Anything I'm missing?
>
> Gwen
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Gwen, i will
> > update the next steps.
> > On Oct 3, 2015 1:08 AM, "Gwen Shapira" <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I created asf-git under
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site
> > > .
> > > git and pushed our existing docs in there.
> > > What do we need to do to get infra to show this in our website?
> > >
> > > Next steps:
> > > 1) Minor fix to PR 171
> > > 2) Merge PR 171
> > > 3) Get Apache to show our git site
> > > 4) Update wiki with "contributing to docs" process
> > >
> > > Gwen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Manikumar Reddy <kumar@nmsworks.co.in
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Gwen,
> > > >
> > > > We need to create new branch named "asf-site" in new git
> > repository[1].
> > > > This is requirement from Apache Infra
> > > > for git based websites [2]. After creating new branch, we will the
> > copy
> > > > the existing to svn repo contents to
> > > > new branch.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > > 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kumar
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Manikumar,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for huge delay!
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) This looks good, I'll get it in
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) I'm confused - do we need a new branch or a new repository? it
> > looks
> > > > > like you already got a new repository, so why do we need a branch
> as
> > > > well?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jun/Gwen/Guozhang,
> > > > > > Need your help to complete this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1) Copy latest docs to kafka repo:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/171
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (2) svn site repo -> git site repo migration : need committer
> > help
> > > to
> > > > > > create a branch "asf-site".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > new git site repo :
> > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kumar
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Our plan is to follow Gwen's suggested approach and migrate
> the
> > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > svn site repo to new git repo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (1) Gwen's suggestion will help to us maintain latest docs in
> > > Kafka
> > > > > > repo
> > > > > > > itself. We periodically need to copy these latest docs to site
> > > > repo. I
> > > > > > > will submit patch for this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (2) svn repo -> git repo migration will help us to
> integrate
> > > site
> > > > > > repo
> > > > > > > to git tooling/github. It will be easy to maintain the site
> repo
> > > and
> > > > > > > changes. So we have created new git repo for docs and need
> > > committer
> > > > > > help
> > > > > > > to create a branch "asf-site".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > new git repo:
> > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope this clears the confusion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kumar
> > > > > > > I thought Gwen's suggestion was to us a separate folder in the
> > same
> > > > > repo
> > > > > > > for docs instead of a separate branch, Gwen can correct me if I
> > was
> > > > > > wrong?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Infra team created git repo for kafka site docs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gwen/Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > Need your help to create a branch "asf-site" and copy
> > the
> > > > > > exiting
> > > > > > > > svn contents to that branch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > git repo:
> > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14709630#comment-14709630
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kumar
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Ismael Juma <
> > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the
> > number
> > > of
> > > > > > tools
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the
> generated
> > > > site,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can
> > watch
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > on GitHub, etc.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > > > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed
> > > further.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > kumar
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > > > > > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will
> > help
> > > us
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another
> > > round
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > voting.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same
> > repo",
> > > > so
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >> sure a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > new vote is required.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > So I think we have two different approaches here.
> > The
> > > > > > original
> > > > > > > > > > >> proposal
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a
> separate
> > > Git
> > > > > > repo,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> hence
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For
> > that
> > > we
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > >> accumulated
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is
> to
> > > > move
> > > > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel
> > > they
> > > > > > prefer
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >> over
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > the previous approach I would like to call for
> > another
> > > > > round
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> voting.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <
> > > > > > > > paliwalashish@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we
> > > follow
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > Flume.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once
> ready
> > > you
> > > > > move
> > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > svn to update website.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update
> > specific
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> website
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful
> :)
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > > > > > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other
> > projects
> > > I
> > > > > > worked
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > is:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the
> > > > latest
> > > > > > > > revision
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > docs
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches
> > the
> > > > > latest
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > code)
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc
> > > > > > modification,
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > >> modify
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > all
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get
> > reviewed
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > together
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > (ideally)
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching
> the
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> commit
> > > > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > SVN
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix
> > bugs
> > > in
> > > > > > > earlier
> > > > > > > > > > docs.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Nice to have:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the
> > > HTML.
> > > > > > > > Asciidoc
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > easier
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > edit and review.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we
> > add
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > >> step
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the
> > website
> > > > > repo.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Ismael
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma
> <
> > > > > > > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update
> the
> > > > code
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> same
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the
> > Apache
> > > > > > infra:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael
> > Juma <
> > > > > > > > > > >> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about
> > > > > improving
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> website
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed
> > interested
> > > in
> > > > > > > helping
> > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> move
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Ismael
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen
> > Shapira
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> gwen@confluent.io
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title.
> > > Never
> > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen
> > > Shapira <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe
> we
> > > can
> > > > > > > conclude
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> 3
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > binding
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and
> > > > migrating?
> > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > looking
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> for a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish
> > > > Singh <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM,
> Edward
> > > > > > Ribeiro <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha
> > > > > Narkhede
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > neha@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and
> > > > website.
> > > > > It
> > > > > > > > helps
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > keep
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM,
> > Grant
> > > > > Henke
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer
> > > docs
> > > > > can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way
> we
> > > > > > encourage
> > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> new
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for
> > > > > example,
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > >> > small
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to
> the
> > > > live
> > > > > > > > > > >> documentation
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > occur
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> without
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > new
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM,
> > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > Wang
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I
> > think
> > > > > > keeping
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > git
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > history of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> /
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be
> > beneficial
> > > > for
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >> approach
> > > > > > > > > > >> > as
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16
> AM,
> > > Gwen
> > > > > > > > Shapira <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for
> > > one-commit
> > > > /
> > > > > > > > > > >> lower-barrier
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> benefits.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following
> > process,
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > decouples
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> documentation
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo
> contains a
> > > doc
> > > > > > > > > directory,
> > > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in
> > > > AsciiDoc.
> > > > > > Only
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > >> > version
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source
> controlled
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > (unlike
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> current SVN
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per
> version)
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles
> the
> > > > > AsciiDoc
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > HTML
> > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > PDF
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post
> the
> > > > > > > > documentation
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > new
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> release
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20
> > AM,
> > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > Juma <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the
> > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > >> discussion on
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > moving
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to
> the
> > > idea
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > Jay
> > > > > > > > > > said.
> > > > > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> like to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around
> whether
> > > the
> > > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > part
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > same
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get
> > the
> > > > ball
> > > > > > > > > rolling.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update
> the
> > > code
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > website,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > which
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> means:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for
> > updating
> > > > docs
> > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that
> > both
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> time
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the
> > website
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > relevant
> > > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for
> > > > > > website-only
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > (smaller
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> repo,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > less
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't
> > > > "clutter"
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > Git
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > history
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website
> change
> > > > > > affecting
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at
> 6:15
> > > PM,
> > > > > > Aseem
> > > > > > > > > > Bansal
> > > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on
> > > KAFKA-2364
> > > > > > > > migrating
> > > > > > > > > > docs
> > > > > > > > > > >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > svn
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> to git
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > came
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing
> to
> > > > docs
> > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > >> easier. I
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > have
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github
> > so
> > > I
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > >> > mirror
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> github
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > could
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless
> there
> > is
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > >> reason
> > > > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> should
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> be a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and
> > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com |
> > > > > twitter.com/gchenke
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > thanks
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > ashish
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > My Photo Galleries:
> > > > http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
Comments below.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Mani. Regarding the release process changes, a couple of comments:
> >
> > 1. Under "bug-fix releases", you mention "major release directory" a
> couple
> > of times. Is this right?
> >
>
> hmm..not sure. For bug fix releases like 0.8.2.X, we are referring its
> major release docs (0.8.2 release). In that sense, i used "major release
> directory". I may be wrong.
>
I see what you mean. I actually don't know what is the current process in
that regard, so I'll leave it to Gwen. :)
> 2. "Auto-generate the configuration docs" is mentioned a couple of times,
> > would it be worth including the command used to do this as well?
> >
>
> Yes, updated the wiki page.
>
Thanks.
Ismael
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> Thanks Mani. Regarding the release process changes, a couple of comments:
>
> 1. Under "bug-fix releases", you mention "major release directory" a couple
> of times. Is this right?
>
hmm..not sure. For bug fix releases like 0.8.2.X, we are referring its
major release docs (0.8.2 release). In that sense, i used "major release
directory". I may be wrong.
> 2. "Auto-generate the configuration docs" is mentioned a couple of times,
> would it be worth including the command used to do this as well?
>
Yes, updated the wiki page.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gwen,
> >
> > Kafka site is updated to use Git repo. We can now push any site changes
> to
> > git web site repo.
> >
> > 1) "Contributing website changes" wiki page:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Website+Documentation+Changes
> >
> > 2) "Website update process" added to Release Process wiki page:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Release+Process
> >
> > 3) PR to update contributing.html:
> > https://github.com/apache/kafka-site/pull/1
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Mani
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 3 Oct 2015 16:44, "Gwen Shapira" <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK, PR 171 is in, and the latest version of the docs is now in docs/
> > > > directory of trunk!
> > >
> > > Awesome. :)
> > >
> > > > Next steps:
> > > > 1. Follow up with infra on our github site
> > >
> > > Follow-up issue filed:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10539. Geoffrey
> > > Corey assigned the issue to himself.
> > >
> > > > 2. Update the docs contribution guide
> > > > 3. Update the release guide (since we are releasing docs as part of
> our
> > > > release artifacts)
> > > >
> > > > Mani, I assume you are on those?
> > > > Anything I'm missing?
> > >
> > > I can't think of anything else at this point.
> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
Thanks Mani. Regarding the release process changes, a couple of comments:
1. Under "bug-fix releases", you mention "major release directory" a couple
of times. Is this right?
2. "Auto-generate the configuration docs" is mentioned a couple of times,
would it be worth including the command used to do this as well?
Ismael
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
wrote:
> Hi Gwen,
>
> Kafka site is updated to use Git repo. We can now push any site changes to
> git web site repo.
>
> 1) "Contributing website changes" wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Website+Documentation+Changes
>
> 2) "Website update process" added to Release Process wiki page:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Release+Process
>
> 3) PR to update contributing.html:
> https://github.com/apache/kafka-site/pull/1
>
>
> Regards
> Mani
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3 Oct 2015 16:44, "Gwen Shapira" <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > OK, PR 171 is in, and the latest version of the docs is now in docs/
> > > directory of trunk!
> >
> > Awesome. :)
> >
> > > Next steps:
> > > 1. Follow up with infra on our github site
> >
> > Follow-up issue filed:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10539. Geoffrey
> > Corey assigned the issue to himself.
> >
> > > 2. Update the docs contribution guide
> > > 3. Update the release guide (since we are releasing docs as part of our
> > > release artifacts)
> > >
> > > Mani, I assume you are on those?
> > > Anything I'm missing?
> >
> > I can't think of anything else at this point.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>.
Hi Gwen,
Kafka site is updated to use Git repo. We can now push any site changes to
git web site repo.
1) "Contributing website changes" wiki page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Website+Documentation+Changes
2) "Website update process" added to Release Process wiki page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Release+Process
3) PR to update contributing.html:
https://github.com/apache/kafka-site/pull/1
Regards
Mani
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2015 16:44, "Gwen Shapira" <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > OK, PR 171 is in, and the latest version of the docs is now in docs/
> > directory of trunk!
>
> Awesome. :)
>
> > Next steps:
> > 1. Follow up with infra on our github site
>
> Follow-up issue filed:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10539. Geoffrey
> Corey assigned the issue to himself.
>
> > 2. Update the docs contribution guide
> > 3. Update the release guide (since we are releasing docs as part of our
> > release artifacts)
> >
> > Mani, I assume you are on those?
> > Anything I'm missing?
>
> I can't think of anything else at this point.
>
> Ismael
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Oct 2015 16:44, "Gwen Shapira" <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> OK, PR 171 is in, and the latest version of the docs is now in docs/
> directory of trunk!
Awesome. :)
> Next steps:
> 1. Follow up with infra on our github site
Follow-up issue filed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10539. Geoffrey
Corey assigned the issue to himself.
> 2. Update the docs contribution guide
> 3. Update the release guide (since we are releasing docs as part of our
> release artifacts)
>
> Mani, I assume you are on those?
> Anything I'm missing?
I can't think of anything else at this point.
Ismael
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>.
OK, PR 171 is in, and the latest version of the docs is now in docs/
directory of trunk!
Next steps:
1. Follow up with infra on our github site
2. Update the docs contribution guide
3. Update the release guide (since we are releasing docs as part of our
release artifacts)
Mani, I assume you are on those?
Anything I'm missing?
Gwen
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
wrote:
> Thanks Gwen, i will
> update the next steps.
> On Oct 3, 2015 1:08 AM, "Gwen Shapira" <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I created asf-git under
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site
> > .
> > git and pushed our existing docs in there.
> > What do we need to do to get infra to show this in our website?
> >
> > Next steps:
> > 1) Minor fix to PR 171
> > 2) Merge PR 171
> > 3) Get Apache to show our git site
> > 4) Update wiki with "contributing to docs" process
> >
> > Gwen
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Gwen,
> > >
> > > We need to create new branch named "asf-site" in new git
> repository[1].
> > > This is requirement from Apache Infra
> > > for git based websites [2]. After creating new branch, we will the
> copy
> > > the existing to svn repo contents to
> > > new branch.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143
> > >
> > >
> > > Kumar
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Manikumar,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for huge delay!
> > > >
> > > > 1) This looks good, I'll get it in
> > > >
> > > > 2) I'm confused - do we need a new branch or a new repository? it
> looks
> > > > like you already got a new repository, so why do we need a branch as
> > > well?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Manikumar Reddy <
> kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jun/Gwen/Guozhang,
> > > > > Need your help to complete this.
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) Copy latest docs to kafka repo:
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/171
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) svn site repo -> git site repo migration : need committer
> help
> > to
> > > > > create a branch "asf-site".
> > > > >
> > > > > new git site repo :
> > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > > >
> > > > > Kumar
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > kumar@nmsworks.co.in
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Our plan is to follow Gwen's suggested approach and migrate the
> > > > > existing
> > > > > > svn site repo to new git repo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1) Gwen's suggestion will help to us maintain latest docs in
> > Kafka
> > > > > repo
> > > > > > itself. We periodically need to copy these latest docs to site
> > > repo. I
> > > > > > will submit patch for this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (2) svn repo -> git repo migration will help us to integrate
> > site
> > > > > repo
> > > > > > to git tooling/github. It will be easy to maintain the site repo
> > and
> > > > > > changes. So we have created new git repo for docs and need
> > committer
> > > > > help
> > > > > > to create a branch "asf-site".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > new git repo:
> > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope this clears the confusion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kumar
> > > > > > I thought Gwen's suggestion was to us a separate folder in the
> same
> > > > repo
> > > > > > for docs instead of a separate branch, Gwen can correct me if I
> was
> > > > > wrong?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Infra team created git repo for kafka site docs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gwen/Guozhang,
> > > > > > > Need your help to create a branch "asf-site" and copy
> the
> > > > > exiting
> > > > > > > svn contents to that branch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > git repo:
> > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14709630#comment-14709630
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kumar
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Ismael Juma <
> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the
> number
> > of
> > > > > tools
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the generated
> > > site,
> > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can
> watch
> > > for
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > on GitHub, etc.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed
> > further.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
> > > > > > > > > 2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > kumar
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > > > > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will
> help
> > us
> > > > to
> > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another
> > round
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > voting.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same
> repo",
> > > so
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> sure a
> > > > > > > > > >> > new vote is required.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > So I think we have two different approaches here.
> The
> > > > > original
> > > > > > > > > >> proposal
> > > > > > > > > >> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate
> > Git
> > > > > repo,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> hence
> > > > > > > > > >> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For
> that
> > we
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > >> accumulated
> > > > > > > > > >> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to
> > > move
> > > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel
> > they
> > > > > prefer
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> over
> > > > > > > > > >> > > the previous approach I would like to call for
> another
> > > > round
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> voting.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <
> > > > > > > paliwalashish@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we
> > follow
> > > in
> > > > > > > Flume.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready
> > you
> > > > move
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > svn to update website.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update
> specific
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> website
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > > > > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other
> projects
> > I
> > > > > worked
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > is:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the
> > > latest
> > > > > > > revision
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > docs
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches
> the
> > > > latest
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > code)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc
> > > > > modification,
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > >> modify
> > > > > > > > > >> > > all
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get
> reviewed
> > > and
> > > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > > >> > > together
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > (ideally)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the
> > > > release
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> commit
> > > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > SVN
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix
> bugs
> > in
> > > > > > earlier
> > > > > > > > > docs.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Nice to have:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the
> > HTML.
> > > > > > > Asciidoc
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> > easier
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > edit and review.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we
> add
> > > an
> > > > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > >> step
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the
> website
> > > > repo.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Ismael
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the
> > > code
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the
> Apache
> > > > > infra:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Best,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael
> Juma <
> > > > > > > > > >> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about
> > > > improving
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> website
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed
> interested
> > in
> > > > > > helping
> > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> move
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Best,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Ismael
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen
> Shapira
> > <
> > > > > > > > > >> gwen@confluent.io
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title.
> > Never
> > > > > mind
> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen
> > Shapira <
> > > > > > > > > >> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we
> > can
> > > > > > conclude
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> 3
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > binding
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and
> > > migrating?
> > > > > Or
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >> > > looking
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> for a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish
> > > Singh <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward
> > > > > Ribeiro <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha
> > > > Narkhede
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > neha@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and
> > > website.
> > > > It
> > > > > > > helps
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > keep
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > both
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM,
> Grant
> > > > Henke
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer
> > docs
> > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > more
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we
> > > > > encourage
> > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> new
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs
> can
> > > be
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for
> > > > example,
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> > small
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the
> > > live
> > > > > > > > > >> documentation
> > > > > > > > > >> > > occur
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> without
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > new
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM,
> > > Guozhang
> > > > > > Wang
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I
> think
> > > > > keeping
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > git
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > history of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> /
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be
> beneficial
> > > for
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> approach
> > > > > > > > > >> > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM,
> > Gwen
> > > > > > > Shapira <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for
> > one-commit
> > > /
> > > > > > > > > >> lower-barrier
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> benefits.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following
> process,
> > > > which
> > > > > > > > > decouples
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> documentation
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a
> > doc
> > > > > > > > directory,
> > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in
> > > AsciiDoc.
> > > > > Only
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > >> > version
> > > > > > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > >> > (unlike
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> current SVN
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the
> > > > AsciiDoc
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > HTML
> > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > PDF
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the
> > > > > > > documentation
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > new
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> release
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20
> AM,
> > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > Juma <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the
> > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > >> discussion on
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > moving
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the
> > idea
> > > > as
> > > > > > Jay
> > > > > > > > > said.
> > > > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> like to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether
> > the
> > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > part
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get
> the
> > > ball
> > > > > > > > rolling.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the
> > code
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > website,
> > > > > > > > > >> > which
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> means:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for
> updating
> > > docs
> > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that
> both
> > > are
> > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > same
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> time
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the
> website
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > relevant
> > > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for
> > > > > website-only
> > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > (smaller
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> repo,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > less
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't
> > > "clutter"
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > Git
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > history
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change
> > > > > affecting
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15
> > PM,
> > > > > Aseem
> > > > > > > > > Bansal
> > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on
> > KAFKA-2364
> > > > > > > migrating
> > > > > > > > > docs
> > > > > > > > > >> > from
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > svn
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> to git
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > came
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to
> > > docs
> > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > >> easier. I
> > > > > > > > > >> > > have
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github
> so
> > I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > >> > mirror
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> github
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > could
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there
> is
> > > > some
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > >> reason
> > > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> should
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> be a
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and
> > code.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com |
> > > > twitter.com/gchenke
> > > > > |
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> --
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > thanks
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > ashish
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > My Photo Galleries:
> > > http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > --
> > > > > > > > > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>.
Thanks Gwen, i will
update the next steps.
On Oct 3, 2015 1:08 AM, "Gwen Shapira" <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I created asf-git under https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site
> .
> git and pushed our existing docs in there.
> What do we need to do to get infra to show this in our website?
>
> Next steps:
> 1) Minor fix to PR 171
> 2) Merge PR 171
> 3) Get Apache to show our git site
> 4) Update wiki with "contributing to docs" process
>
> Gwen
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gwen,
> >
> > We need to create new branch named "asf-site" in new git repository[1].
> > This is requirement from Apache Infra
> > for git based websites [2]. After creating new branch, we will the copy
> > the existing to svn repo contents to
> > new branch.
> >
> >
> > 1. https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143
> >
> >
> > Kumar
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Manikumar,
> > >
> > > Sorry for huge delay!
> > >
> > > 1) This looks good, I'll get it in
> > >
> > > 2) I'm confused - do we need a new branch or a new repository? it looks
> > > like you already got a new repository, so why do we need a branch as
> > well?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jun/Gwen/Guozhang,
> > > > Need your help to complete this.
> > > >
> > > > (1) Copy latest docs to kafka repo:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/171
> > > >
> > > > (2) svn site repo -> git site repo migration : need committer help
> to
> > > > create a branch "asf-site".
> > > >
> > > > new git site repo :
> > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > >
> > > > Kumar
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> kumar@nmsworks.co.in
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Guozhang,
> > > > >
> > > > > Our plan is to follow Gwen's suggested approach and migrate the
> > > > existing
> > > > > svn site repo to new git repo.
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) Gwen's suggestion will help to us maintain latest docs in
> Kafka
> > > > repo
> > > > > itself. We periodically need to copy these latest docs to site
> > repo. I
> > > > > will submit patch for this.
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) svn repo -> git repo migration will help us to integrate
> site
> > > > repo
> > > > > to git tooling/github. It will be easy to maintain the site repo
> and
> > > > > changes. So we have created new git repo for docs and need
> committer
> > > > help
> > > > > to create a branch "asf-site".
> > > > >
> > > > > new git repo:
> > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this clears the confusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kumar
> > > > > I thought Gwen's suggestion was to us a separate folder in the same
> > > repo
> > > > > for docs instead of a separate branch, Gwen can correct me if I was
> > > > wrong?
> > > > >
> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Infra team created git repo for kafka site docs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gwen/Guozhang,
> > > > > > Need your help to create a branch "asf-site" and copy the
> > > > exiting
> > > > > > svn contents to that branch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > git repo:
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14709630#comment-14709630
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kumar
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the number
> of
> > > > tools
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the generated
> > site,
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can watch
> > for
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > on GitHub, etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed
> further.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
> > > > > > > > 2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > kumar
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > > > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help
> us
> > > to
> > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another
> round
> > > of
> > > > > > > voting.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo",
> > so
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> sure a
> > > > > > > > >> > new vote is required.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > So I think we have two different approaches here. The
> > > > original
> > > > > > > > >> proposal
> > > > > > > > >> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate
> Git
> > > > repo,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> hence
> > > > > > > > >> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that
> we
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> accumulated
> > > > > > > > >> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to
> > move
> > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel
> they
> > > > prefer
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> over
> > > > > > > > >> > > the previous approach I would like to call for another
> > > round
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> voting.
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <
> > > > > > paliwalashish@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we
> follow
> > in
> > > > > > Flume.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready
> you
> > > move
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > svn to update website.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific
> > > > changes
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> website
> > > > > > > > >> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > > > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects
> I
> > > > worked
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > is:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the
> > latest
> > > > > > revision
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > docs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the
> > > latest
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > code)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc
> > > > modification,
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> modify
> > > > > > > > >> > > all
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed
> > and
> > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > >> > > together
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > (ideally)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the
> > > release
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> commit
> > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > SVN
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs
> in
> > > > > earlier
> > > > > > > > docs.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Nice to have:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the
> HTML.
> > > > > > Asciidoc
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > easier
> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > edit and review.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add
> > an
> > > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > >> step
> > > > > > > > >> > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website
> > > repo.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Ismael
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the
> > code
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache
> > > > infra:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Best,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Ismael
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > > > > >> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about
> > > improving
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> website
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested
> in
> > > > > helping
> > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> move
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Best,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Ismael
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira
> <
> > > > > > > > >> gwen@confluent.io
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title.
> Never
> > > > mind
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen
> Shapira <
> > > > > > > > >> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we
> can
> > > > > conclude
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> 3
> > > > > > > > >> > > > binding
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and
> > migrating?
> > > > Or
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > looking
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> for a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish
> > Singh <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward
> > > > Ribeiro <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha
> > > Narkhede
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > neha@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and
> > website.
> > > It
> > > > > > helps
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > keep
> > > > > > > > >> > > > both
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant
> > > Henke
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer
> docs
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we
> > > > encourage
> > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can
> > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for
> > > example,
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > small
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the
> > live
> > > > > > > > >> documentation
> > > > > > > > >> > > occur
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> without
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM,
> > Guozhang
> > > > > Wang
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think
> > > > keeping
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > git
> > > > > > > > >> > > > history of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> /
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial
> > for
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> approach
> > > > > > > > >> > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > well.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM,
> Gwen
> > > > > > Shapira <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for
> one-commit
> > /
> > > > > > > > >> lower-barrier
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> benefits.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process,
> > > which
> > > > > > > > decouples
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> documentation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a
> doc
> > > > > > > directory,
> > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in
> > AsciiDoc.
> > > > Only
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > >> > version
> > > > > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > >> > (unlike
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> current SVN
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the
> > > AsciiDoc
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > HTML
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > PDF
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the
> > > > > > documentation
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> release
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM,
> > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > Juma <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the
> > > previous
> > > > > > > > >> discussion on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > moving
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the
> idea
> > > as
> > > > > Jay
> > > > > > > > said.
> > > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> like to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether
> the
> > > > > website
> > > > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > part
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the
> > ball
> > > > > > > rolling.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the
> code
> > > and
> > > > > > > > website,
> > > > > > > > >> > which
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> means:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating
> > docs
> > > > > along
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both
> > are
> > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> time
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with
> > the
> > > > > > relevant
> > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for
> > > > website-only
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > (smaller
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> repo,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > less
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't
> > "clutter"
> > > > the
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > Git
> > > > > > > > >> > > > history
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change
> > > > affecting
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15
> PM,
> > > > Aseem
> > > > > > > > Bansal
> > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on
> KAFKA-2364
> > > > > > migrating
> > > > > > > > docs
> > > > > > > > >> > from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > svn
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> to git
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > came
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to
> > docs
> > > > much
> > > > > > > > >> easier. I
> > > > > > > > >> > > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > >> > mirror
> > > > > > > > >> > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> github
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > could
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is
> > > some
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > >> reason
> > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> be a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and
> code.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com |
> > > twitter.com/gchenke
> > > > |
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > thanks
> > > > > > > > >> > > > ashish
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > > > > > > > >> > > > My Photo Galleries:
> > http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Ashish <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Does this mean doc patches would be welcome only for a production
> release? else you would need a diff branch for accepting docs for
> trunk features/patches which don't get reflected on the website.
>
Yes, you will contribute changes to the relevant branch of the code
repository and this will be pushed to the website Git repo as needed.
Does Infra supports git based sites?
>
Yes.
Ismael
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ashish <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I created asf-git under https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.
> git and pushed our existing docs in there.
> What do we need to do to get infra to show this in our website?
>
> Next steps:
> 1) Minor fix to PR 171
> 2) Merge PR 171
> 3) Get Apache to show our git site
> 4) Update wiki with "contributing to docs" process
>
> Gwen
Does this mean doc patches would be welcome only for a production
release? else you would need a diff branch for accepting docs for
trunk features/patches which don't get reflected on the website.
Does Infra supports git based sites?
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
Thanks Gwen. Comments below.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> I created asf-git under https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site
> .
> git and pushed our existing docs in there.
> What do we need to do to get infra to show this in our website?
>
You need to reopen the ticket that was closed due to inactivity and tell
them that the branch was created:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143
Next steps:
> 1) Minor fix to PR 171
> 2) Merge PR 171
> 3) Get Apache to show our git site
> 4) Update wiki with "contributing to docs" process
>
The contributing to website instructions are on the website at the moment,
so we need to update that too:
http://kafka.apache.org/contributing.html
And we also need to update the release instructions.
Ismael
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>.
Hi,
I created asf-git under https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.
git and pushed our existing docs in there.
What do we need to do to get infra to show this in our website?
Next steps:
1) Minor fix to PR 171
2) Merge PR 171
3) Get Apache to show our git site
4) Update wiki with "contributing to docs" process
Gwen
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
wrote:
> Hi Gwen,
>
> We need to create new branch named "asf-site" in new git repository[1].
> This is requirement from Apache Infra
> for git based websites [2]. After creating new branch, we will the copy
> the existing to svn repo contents to
> new branch.
>
>
> 1. https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143
>
>
> Kumar
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi Manikumar,
> >
> > Sorry for huge delay!
> >
> > 1) This looks good, I'll get it in
> >
> > 2) I'm confused - do we need a new branch or a new repository? it looks
> > like you already got a new repository, so why do we need a branch as
> well?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Jun/Gwen/Guozhang,
> > > Need your help to complete this.
> > >
> > > (1) Copy latest docs to kafka repo:
> > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/171
> > >
> > > (2) svn site repo -> git site repo migration : need committer help to
> > > create a branch "asf-site".
> > >
> > > new git site repo :
> > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > >
> > > Kumar
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Manikumar Reddy <kumar@nmsworks.co.in
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Guozhang,
> > > >
> > > > Our plan is to follow Gwen's suggested approach and migrate the
> > > existing
> > > > svn site repo to new git repo.
> > > >
> > > > (1) Gwen's suggestion will help to us maintain latest docs in Kafka
> > > repo
> > > > itself. We periodically need to copy these latest docs to site
> repo. I
> > > > will submit patch for this.
> > > >
> > > > (2) svn repo -> git repo migration will help us to integrate site
> > > repo
> > > > to git tooling/github. It will be easy to maintain the site repo and
> > > > changes. So we have created new git repo for docs and need committer
> > > help
> > > > to create a branch "asf-site".
> > > >
> > > > new git repo:
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > >
> > > > Hope this clears the confusion.
> > > >
> > > > Kumar
> > > > I thought Gwen's suggestion was to us a separate folder in the same
> > repo
> > > > for docs instead of a separate branch, Gwen can correct me if I was
> > > wrong?
> > > >
> > > > Guozhang
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Infra team created git repo for kafka site docs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gwen/Guozhang,
> > > > > Need your help to create a branch "asf-site" and copy the
> > > exiting
> > > > > svn contents to that branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > git repo:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14709630#comment-14709630
> > > > >
> > > > > Kumar
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the number of
> > > tools
> > > > > we
> > > > > > need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the generated
> site,
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can watch
> for
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > on GitHub, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed further.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
> > > > > > > 2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > kumar
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us
> > to
> > > > fix
> > > > > > > > occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <
> > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round
> > of
> > > > > > voting.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo",
> so
> > > I'm
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> sure a
> > > > > > > >> > new vote is required.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > So I think we have two different approaches here. The
> > > original
> > > > > > > >> proposal
> > > > > > > >> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git
> > > repo,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> hence
> > > > > > > >> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we
> > > have
> > > > > > > >> accumulated
> > > > > > > >> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to
> move
> > > > > website
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel they
> > > prefer
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> over
> > > > > > > >> > > the previous approach I would like to call for another
> > round
> > > > of
> > > > > > > >> voting.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <
> > > > > paliwalashish@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow
> in
> > > > > Flume.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you
> > move
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > svn to update website.
> > > > > > > >> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific
> > > changes
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> website
> > > > > > > >> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I
> > > worked
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > is:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the
> latest
> > > > > revision
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > docs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the
> > latest
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > code)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc
> > > modification,
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> modify
> > > > > > > >> > > all
> > > > > > > >> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed
> and
> > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > >> > > together
> > > > > > > >> > > > > (ideally)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the
> > release
> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> commit
> > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > SVN
> > > > > > > >> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in
> > > > earlier
> > > > > > > docs.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Nice to have:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML.
> > > > > Asciidoc
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > easier
> > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > edit and review.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add
> an
> > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > >> step
> > > > > > > >> > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website
> > repo.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> Ismael
> > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the
> code
> > > and
> > > > > > > website
> > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> same
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache
> > > infra:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Best,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > Ismael
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > > > >> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about
> > improving
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> website
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in
> > > > helping
> > > > > > us
> > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> move
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Best,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Ismael
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > > > >> gwen@confluent.io
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never
> > > mind
> > > > :)
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > > > >> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can
> > > > conclude
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> 3
> > > > > > > >> > > > binding
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and
> migrating?
> > > Or
> > > > > are
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > looking
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> for a
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish
> Singh <
> > > > > > > >> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward
> > > Ribeiro <
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha
> > Narkhede
> > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > neha@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and
> website.
> > It
> > > > > helps
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > keep
> > > > > > > >> > > > both
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant
> > Henke
> > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs
> > can
> > > be
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > more
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we
> > > encourage
> > > > > unit
> > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> new
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can
> be
> > > the
> > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for
> > example,
> > > > how
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > small
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the
> live
> > > > > > > >> documentation
> > > > > > > >> > > occur
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> without
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > new
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM,
> Guozhang
> > > > Wang
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think
> > > keeping
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > git
> > > > > > > >> > > > history of
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> /
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial
> for
> > > this
> > > > > > > >> approach
> > > > > > > >> > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > well.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen
> > > > > Shapira <
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit
> /
> > > > > > > >> lower-barrier
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> benefits.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process,
> > which
> > > > > > > decouples
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> documentation
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc
> > > > > > directory,
> > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in
> AsciiDoc.
> > > Only
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > >> > version
> > > > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with
> > the
> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > >> > (unlike
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> current SVN
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the
> > AsciiDoc
> > > > to
> > > > > > HTML
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > PDF
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the
> > > > > documentation
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > new
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> release
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM,
> > > Ismael
> > > > > > Juma <
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the
> > previous
> > > > > > > >> discussion on
> > > > > > > >> > > > moving
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea
> > as
> > > > Jay
> > > > > > > said.
> > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> like to
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the
> > > > website
> > > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > > >> > > > part
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> of
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > same
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the
> ball
> > > > > > rolling.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code
> > and
> > > > > > > website,
> > > > > > > >> > which
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> means:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating
> docs
> > > > along
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > relevant
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both
> are
> > > > > updated
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > same
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> time
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website
> > > changes
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with
> the
> > > > > relevant
> > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for
> > > website-only
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > >> > > > (smaller
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> repo,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > less
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't
> "clutter"
> > > the
> > > > > code
> > > > > > > Git
> > > > > > > >> > > > history
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change
> > > affecting
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM,
> > > Aseem
> > > > > > > Bansal
> > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364
> > > > > migrating
> > > > > > > docs
> > > > > > > >> > from
> > > > > > > >> > > > svn
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> to git
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > came
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to
> docs
> > > much
> > > > > > > >> easier. I
> > > > > > > >> > > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I
> > > think
> > > > > > having
> > > > > > > >> > mirror
> > > > > > > >> > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> github
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > could
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is
> > some
> > > > good
> > > > > > > >> reason
> > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> should
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> be a
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com |
> > twitter.com/gchenke
> > > |
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> --
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > thanks
> > > > > > > >> > > > ashish
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > > > > > > >> > > > My Photo Galleries:
> http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -- Guozhang
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>.
Hi Gwen,
We need to create new branch named "asf-site" in new git repository[1].
This is requirement from Apache Infra
for git based websites [2]. After creating new branch, we will the copy
the existing to svn repo contents to
new branch.
1. https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143
Kumar
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Hi Manikumar,
>
> Sorry for huge delay!
>
> 1) This looks good, I'll get it in
>
> 2) I'm confused - do we need a new branch or a new repository? it looks
> like you already got a new repository, so why do we need a branch as well?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> wrote:
>
> > Jun/Gwen/Guozhang,
> > Need your help to complete this.
> >
> > (1) Copy latest docs to kafka repo:
> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/171
> >
> > (2) svn site repo -> git site repo migration : need committer help to
> > create a branch "asf-site".
> >
> > new git site repo :
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> >
> > Kumar
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Guozhang,
> > >
> > > Our plan is to follow Gwen's suggested approach and migrate the
> > existing
> > > svn site repo to new git repo.
> > >
> > > (1) Gwen's suggestion will help to us maintain latest docs in Kafka
> > repo
> > > itself. We periodically need to copy these latest docs to site repo. I
> > > will submit patch for this.
> > >
> > > (2) svn repo -> git repo migration will help us to integrate site
> > repo
> > > to git tooling/github. It will be easy to maintain the site repo and
> > > changes. So we have created new git repo for docs and need committer
> > help
> > > to create a branch "asf-site".
> > >
> > > new git repo:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > >
> > > Hope this clears the confusion.
> > >
> > > Kumar
> > > I thought Gwen's suggestion was to us a separate folder in the same
> repo
> > > for docs instead of a separate branch, Gwen can correct me if I was
> > wrong?
> > >
> > > Guozhang
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Manikumar Reddy <
> kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Infra team created git repo for kafka site docs.
> > > >
> > > > Gwen/Guozhang,
> > > > Need your help to create a branch "asf-site" and copy the
> > exiting
> > > > svn contents to that branch.
> > > >
> > > > git repo: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14709630#comment-14709630
> > > >
> > > > Kumar
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the number of
> > tools
> > > > we
> > > > > need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the generated site,
> we
> > > can
> > > > > use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can watch for
> > > > changes
> > > > > on GitHub, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ismael
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > kumar@nmsworks.co.in
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed further.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
> > > > > > 2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
> > > > > >
> > > > > > kumar
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us
> to
> > > fix
> > > > > > > occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <
> > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round
> of
> > > > > voting.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so
> > I'm
> > > > not
> > > > > > >> sure a
> > > > > > >> > new vote is required.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > So I think we have two different approaches here. The
> > original
> > > > > > >> proposal
> > > > > > >> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git
> > repo,
> > > > and
> > > > > > >> hence
> > > > > > >> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we
> > have
> > > > > > >> accumulated
> > > > > > >> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move
> > > > website
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel they
> > prefer
> > > > > this
> > > > > > >> over
> > > > > > >> > > the previous approach I would like to call for another
> round
> > > of
> > > > > > >> voting.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Guozhang
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <
> > > > paliwalashish@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in
> > > > Flume.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you
> move
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > svn to update website.
> > > > > > >> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific
> > changes
> > > to
> > > > > > >> website
> > > > > > >> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I
> > worked
> > > > on
> > > > > > is:
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest
> > > > revision
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > docs
> > > > > > >> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the
> latest
> > > > state
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > code)
> > > > > > >> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc
> > modification,
> > > > you
> > > > > > >> modify
> > > > > > >> > > all
> > > > > > >> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and
> > > > > committed
> > > > > > >> > > together
> > > > > > >> > > > > (ideally)
> > > > > > >> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the
> release
> > > and
> > > > > > >> commit
> > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > >> > > > SVN
> > > > > > >> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in
> > > earlier
> > > > > > docs.
> > > > > > >> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > Nice to have:
> > > > > > >> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML.
> > > > Asciidoc
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > easier
> > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > edit and review.
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an
> > > > > additional
> > > > > > >> step
> > > > > > >> > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website
> repo.
> > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> Ismael
> > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> > Hi all,
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code
> > and
> > > > > > website
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > >> same
> > > > > > >> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache
> > infra:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> > Best,
> > > > > > >> > > > >> > Ismael
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > > >> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about
> improving
> > > the
> > > > > > >> website
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in
> > > helping
> > > > > us
> > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > >> move
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Best,
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> Ismael
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > > >> gwen@confluent.io
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never
> > mind
> > > :)
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > > >> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can
> > > conclude
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> 3
> > > > > > >> > > > binding
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating?
> > Or
> > > > are
> > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > looking
> > > > > > >> > > > >> for a
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> > > > > > >> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward
> > Ribeiro <
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha
> Narkhede
> > <
> > > > > > >> > > > neha@confluent.io>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website.
> It
> > > > helps
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > keep
> > > > > > >> > > > both
> > > > > > >> > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant
> Henke
> > <
> > > > > > >> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs
> can
> > be
> > > > to
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > more
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we
> > encourage
> > > > unit
> > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > >> new
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be
> > the
> > > > > same.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for
> example,
> > > how
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> > small
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live
> > > > > > >> documentation
> > > > > > >> > > occur
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> without
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> a
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > new
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang
> > > Wang
> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think
> > keeping
> > > > one
> > > > > > git
> > > > > > >> > > > history of
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> /
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for
> > this
> > > > > > >> approach
> > > > > > >> > as
> > > > > > >> > > > well.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen
> > > > Shapira <
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit /
> > > > > > >> lower-barrier
> > > > > > >> > > > >> benefits.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process,
> which
> > > > > > decouples
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> documentation
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc
> > > > > directory,
> > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc.
> > Only
> > > > one
> > > > > > >> > version
> > > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with
> the
> > > > code.
> > > > > > >> > (unlike
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> current SVN
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the
> AsciiDoc
> > > to
> > > > > HTML
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> > > PDF
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the
> > > > documentation
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > new
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> release
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM,
> > Ismael
> > > > > Juma <
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the
> previous
> > > > > > >> discussion on
> > > > > > >> > > > moving
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea
> as
> > > Jay
> > > > > > said.
> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> like to
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the
> > > website
> > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > >> > > > part
> > > > > > >> > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > same
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball
> > > > > rolling.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code
> and
> > > > > > website,
> > > > > > >> > which
> > > > > > >> > > > >> means:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs
> > > along
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > relevant
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are
> > > > updated
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > same
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> time
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website
> > changes
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the
> > > > relevant
> > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for
> > website-only
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> > > > (smaller
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> repo,
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > less
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter"
> > the
> > > > code
> > > > > > Git
> > > > > > >> > > > history
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change
> > affecting
> > > > the
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM,
> > Aseem
> > > > > > Bansal
> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364
> > > > migrating
> > > > > > docs
> > > > > > >> > from
> > > > > > >> > > > svn
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> to git
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > came
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs
> > much
> > > > > > >> easier. I
> > > > > > >> > > have
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I
> > think
> > > > > having
> > > > > > >> > mirror
> > > > > > >> > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> github
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > could
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is
> some
> > > good
> > > > > > >> reason
> > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > >> > > > >> should
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> be a
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com |
> twitter.com/gchenke
> > |
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> --
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > thanks
> > > > > > >> > > > ashish
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > > > > > >> > > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > --
> > > > > > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- Guozhang
> > >
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>.
Hi Manikumar,
Sorry for huge delay!
1) This looks good, I'll get it in
2) I'm confused - do we need a new branch or a new repository? it looks
like you already got a new repository, so why do we need a branch as well?
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
wrote:
> Jun/Gwen/Guozhang,
> Need your help to complete this.
>
> (1) Copy latest docs to kafka repo:
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/171
>
> (2) svn site repo -> git site repo migration : need committer help to
> create a branch "asf-site".
>
> new git site repo :
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
>
> Kumar
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Guozhang,
> >
> > Our plan is to follow Gwen's suggested approach and migrate the
> existing
> > svn site repo to new git repo.
> >
> > (1) Gwen's suggestion will help to us maintain latest docs in Kafka
> repo
> > itself. We periodically need to copy these latest docs to site repo. I
> > will submit patch for this.
> >
> > (2) svn repo -> git repo migration will help us to integrate site
> repo
> > to git tooling/github. It will be easy to maintain the site repo and
> > changes. So we have created new git repo for docs and need committer
> help
> > to create a branch "asf-site".
> >
> > new git repo: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> >
> > Hope this clears the confusion.
> >
> > Kumar
> > I thought Gwen's suggestion was to us a separate folder in the same repo
> > for docs instead of a separate branch, Gwen can correct me if I was
> wrong?
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Infra team created git repo for kafka site docs.
> > >
> > > Gwen/Guozhang,
> > > Need your help to create a branch "asf-site" and copy the
> exiting
> > > svn contents to that branch.
> > >
> > > git repo: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14709630#comment-14709630
> > >
> > > Kumar
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the number of
> tools
> > > we
> > > > need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the generated site, we
> > can
> > > > use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can watch for
> > > changes
> > > > on GitHub, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> kumar@nmsworks.co.in
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed further.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
> > > > > 2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
> > > > >
> > > > > kumar
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > > kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us to
> > fix
> > > > > > occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <
> wangguoz@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round of
> > > > voting.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > > >> sure a
> > > > > >> > new vote is required.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > So I think we have two different approaches here. The
> original
> > > > > >> proposal
> > > > > >> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git
> repo,
> > > and
> > > > > >> hence
> > > > > >> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we
> have
> > > > > >> accumulated
> > > > > >> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move
> > > website
> > > > > into
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel they
> prefer
> > > > this
> > > > > >> over
> > > > > >> > > the previous approach I would like to call for another round
> > of
> > > > > >> voting.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Guozhang
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <
> > > paliwalashish@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in
> > > Flume.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move
> > > > changes
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > svn to update website.
> > > > > >> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific
> changes
> > to
> > > > > >> website
> > > > > >> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I
> worked
> > > on
> > > > > is:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest
> > > revision
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > docs
> > > > > >> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest
> > > state
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> > code)
> > > > > >> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc
> modification,
> > > you
> > > > > >> modify
> > > > > >> > > all
> > > > > >> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and
> > > > committed
> > > > > >> > > together
> > > > > >> > > > > (ideally)
> > > > > >> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release
> > and
> > > > > >> commit
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > SVN
> > > > > >> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in
> > earlier
> > > > > docs.
> > > > > >> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Nice to have:
> > > > > >> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML.
> > > Asciidoc
> > > > is
> > > > > >> > easier
> > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > edit and review.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an
> > > > additional
> > > > > >> step
> > > > > >> > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
> > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> Ismael
> > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> > Hi all,
> > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code
> and
> > > > > website
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > >> same
> > > > > >> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache
> infra:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> > Best,
> > > > > >> > > > >> > Ismael
> > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > > >> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving
> > the
> > > > > >> website
> > > > > >> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in
> > helping
> > > > us
> > > > > >> with
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > >> move
> > > > > >> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >> Best,
> > > > > >> > > > >> >> Ismael
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > >> gwen@confluent.io
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never
> mind
> > :)
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > >> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can
> > conclude
> > > > > with
> > > > > >> 3
> > > > > >> > > > binding
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating?
> Or
> > > are
> > > > we
> > > > > >> > > looking
> > > > > >> > > > >> for a
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> > > > > >> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward
> Ribeiro <
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede
> <
> > > > > >> > > > neha@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It
> > > helps
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > keep
> > > > > >> > > > both
> > > > > >> > > > >> in
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke
> <
> > > > > >> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can
> be
> > > to
> > > > > code
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > more
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we
> encourage
> > > unit
> > > > > >> tests
> > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > >> new
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be
> the
> > > > same.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example,
> > how
> > > > > would
> > > > > >> > small
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live
> > > > > >> documentation
> > > > > >> > > occur
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> without
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> a
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > new
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang
> > Wang
> > > <
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think
> keeping
> > > one
> > > > > git
> > > > > >> > > > history of
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> /
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for
> this
> > > > > >> approach
> > > > > >> > as
> > > > > >> > > > well.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen
> > > Shapira <
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit /
> > > > > >> lower-barrier
> > > > > >> > > > >> benefits.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which
> > > > > decouples
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> documentation
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc
> > > > directory,
> > > > > >> with
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc.
> Only
> > > one
> > > > > >> > version
> > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > >> > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the
> > > code.
> > > > > >> > (unlike
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> current SVN
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc
> > to
> > > > HTML
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > PDF
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the
> > > documentation
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > new
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> release
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> to
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM,
> Ismael
> > > > Juma <
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous
> > > > > >> discussion on
> > > > > >> > > > moving
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as
> > Jay
> > > > > said.
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> like to
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the
> > website
> > > > > >> should be
> > > > > >> > > > part
> > > > > >> > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > same
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball
> > > > rolling.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and
> > > > > website,
> > > > > >> > which
> > > > > >> > > > >> means:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs
> > along
> > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > relevant
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are
> > > updated
> > > > > at
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > same
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> time
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website
> changes
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the
> > > relevant
> > > > > >> code
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for
> website-only
> > > > > changes
> > > > > >> > > > (smaller
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> repo,
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > less
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter"
> the
> > > code
> > > > > Git
> > > > > >> > > > history
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change
> affecting
> > > the
> > > > > code
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM,
> Aseem
> > > > > Bansal
> > > > > >> <
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364
> > > migrating
> > > > > docs
> > > > > >> > from
> > > > > >> > > > svn
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> to git
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > came
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs
> much
> > > > > >> easier. I
> > > > > >> > > have
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I
> think
> > > > having
> > > > > >> > mirror
> > > > > >> > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> github
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > could
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some
> > good
> > > > > >> reason
> > > > > >> > it
> > > > > >> > > > >> should
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> be a
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke
> |
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> --
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > thanks
> > > > > >> > > > ashish
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > > > > >> > > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > --
> > > > > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>.
Jun/Gwen/Guozhang,
Need your help to complete this.
(1) Copy latest docs to kafka repo:
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/171
(2) svn site repo -> git site repo migration : need committer help to
create a branch "asf-site".
new git site repo :
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
Kumar
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
wrote:
> Hi Guozhang,
>
> Our plan is to follow Gwen's suggested approach and migrate the existing
> svn site repo to new git repo.
>
> (1) Gwen's suggestion will help to us maintain latest docs in Kafka repo
> itself. We periodically need to copy these latest docs to site repo. I
> will submit patch for this.
>
> (2) svn repo -> git repo migration will help us to integrate site repo
> to git tooling/github. It will be easy to maintain the site repo and
> changes. So we have created new git repo for docs and need committer help
> to create a branch "asf-site".
>
> new git repo: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
>
> Hope this clears the confusion.
>
> Kumar
> I thought Gwen's suggestion was to us a separate folder in the same repo
> for docs instead of a separate branch, Gwen can correct me if I was wrong?
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Infra team created git repo for kafka site docs.
> >
> > Gwen/Guozhang,
> > Need your help to create a branch "asf-site" and copy the exiting
> > svn contents to that branch.
> >
> > git repo: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14709630#comment-14709630
> >
> > Kumar
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the number of tools
> > we
> > > need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the generated site, we
> can
> > > use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can watch for
> > changes
> > > on GitHub, etc.
> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy <kumar@nmsworks.co.in
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed further.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
> > > > 2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
> > > >
> > > > kumar
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> > kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us to
> fix
> > > > > occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round of
> > > voting.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so I'm
> > not
> > > > >> sure a
> > > > >> > new vote is required.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > So I think we have two different approaches here. The original
> > > > >> proposal
> > > > >> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo,
> > and
> > > > >> hence
> > > > >> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have
> > > > >> accumulated
> > > > >> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move
> > website
> > > > into
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel they prefer
> > > this
> > > > >> over
> > > > >> > > the previous approach I would like to call for another round
> of
> > > > >> voting.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Guozhang
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <
> > paliwalashish@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in
> > Flume.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move
> > > changes
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > svn to update website.
> > > > >> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes
> to
> > > > >> website
> > > > >> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked
> > on
> > > > is:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest
> > revision
> > > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > docs
> > > > >> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest
> > state
> > > > of
> > > > >> > code)
> > > > >> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification,
> > you
> > > > >> modify
> > > > >> > > all
> > > > >> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and
> > > committed
> > > > >> > > together
> > > > >> > > > > (ideally)
> > > > >> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release
> and
> > > > >> commit
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > SVN
> > > > >> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in
> earlier
> > > > docs.
> > > > >> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Nice to have:
> > > > >> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML.
> > Asciidoc
> > > is
> > > > >> > easier
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > edit and review.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > >
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an
> > > additional
> > > > >> step
> > > > >> > > > that
> > > > >> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >> Ismael
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >> > Hi all,
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and
> > > > website
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > >> same
> > > > >> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > Best,
> > > > >> > > > >> > Ismael
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > >> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving
> the
> > > > >> website
> > > > >> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in
> helping
> > > us
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > >> move
> > > > >> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >> Best,
> > > > >> > > > >> >> Ismael
> > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > >> gwen@confluent.io
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind
> :)
> > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > >> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can
> conclude
> > > > with
> > > > >> 3
> > > > >> > > > binding
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or
> > are
> > > we
> > > > >> > > looking
> > > > >> > > > >> for a
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> > > > >> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> > > > >> > > > neha@confluent.io>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It
> > helps
> > > > to
> > > > >> > keep
> > > > >> > > > both
> > > > >> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> > > > >> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be
> > to
> > > > code
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > more
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage
> > unit
> > > > >> tests
> > > > >> > > for
> > > > >> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > >> new
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the
> > > same.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example,
> how
> > > > would
> > > > >> > small
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live
> > > > >> documentation
> > > > >> > > occur
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> without
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> a
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > new
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang
> Wang
> > <
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping
> > one
> > > > git
> > > > >> > > > history of
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> /
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this
> > > > >> approach
> > > > >> > as
> > > > >> > > > well.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen
> > Shapira <
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit /
> > > > >> lower-barrier
> > > > >> > > > >> benefits.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which
> > > > decouples
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> documentation
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc
> > > directory,
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only
> > one
> > > > >> > version
> > > > >> > > of
> > > > >> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the
> > code.
> > > > >> > (unlike
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> current SVN
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc
> to
> > > HTML
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > PDF
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the
> > documentation
> > > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > new
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> release
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> to
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael
> > > Juma <
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous
> > > > >> discussion on
> > > > >> > > > moving
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as
> Jay
> > > > said.
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> > > would
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> like to
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the
> website
> > > > >> should be
> > > > >> > > > part
> > > > >> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > same
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball
> > > rolling.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and
> > > > website,
> > > > >> > which
> > > > >> > > > >> means:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs
> along
> > > > with
> > > > >> > > > relevant
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are
> > updated
> > > > at
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > same
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> time
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the
> > relevant
> > > > >> code
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only
> > > > changes
> > > > >> > > > (smaller
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> repo,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > less
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the
> > code
> > > > Git
> > > > >> > > > history
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting
> > the
> > > > code
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem
> > > > Bansal
> > > > >> <
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364
> > migrating
> > > > docs
> > > > >> > from
> > > > >> > > > svn
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> to git
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > came
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much
> > > > >> easier. I
> > > > >> > > have
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think
> > > having
> > > > >> > mirror
> > > > >> > > > on
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> github
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > could
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some
> good
> > > > >> reason
> > > > >> > it
> > > > >> > > > >> should
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> be a
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> --
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > thanks
> > > > >> > > > ashish
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > > > >> > > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > --
> > > > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>.
Hi Guozhang,
Our plan is to follow Gwen's suggested approach and migrate the existing
svn site repo to new git repo.
(1) Gwen's suggestion will help to us maintain latest docs in Kafka repo
itself. We periodically need to copy these latest docs to site repo. I
will submit patch for this.
(2) svn repo -> git repo migration will help us to integrate site repo
to git tooling/github. It will be easy to maintain the site repo and
changes. So we have created new git repo for docs and need committer help
to create a branch "asf-site".
new git repo: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
Hope this clears the confusion.
Kumar
I thought Gwen's suggestion was to us a separate folder in the same repo
for docs instead of a separate branch, Gwen can correct me if I was wrong?
Guozhang
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Infra team created git repo for kafka site docs.
>
> Gwen/Guozhang,
> Need your help to create a branch "asf-site" and copy the exiting
> svn contents to that branch.
>
> git repo: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
>
>
>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14709630#comment-14709630
>
> Kumar
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the number of tools
> we
> > need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the generated site, we
can
> > use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can watch for
> changes
> > on GitHub, etc.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed further.
> > >
> > > 1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
> > > 2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
> > >
> > > kumar
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us to fix
> > > > occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round of
> > voting.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so I'm
> not
> > > >> sure a
> > > >> > new vote is required.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > So I think we have two different approaches here. The original
> > > >> proposal
> > > >> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo,
> and
> > > >> hence
> > > >> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have
> > > >> accumulated
> > > >> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move
> website
> > > into
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel they prefer
> > this
> > > >> over
> > > >> > > the previous approach I would like to call for another round of
> > > >> voting.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Guozhang
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <
> paliwalashish@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in
> Flume.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move
> > changes
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > svn to update website.
> > > >> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes
to
> > > >> website
> > > >> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked
> on
> > > is:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest
> revision
> > > of
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > docs
> > > >> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest
> state
> > > of
> > > >> > code)
> > > >> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification,
> you
> > > >> modify
> > > >> > > all
> > > >> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and
> > committed
> > > >> > > together
> > > >> > > > > (ideally)
> > > >> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release
and
> > > >> commit
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > SVN
> > > >> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in
earlier
> > > docs.
> > > >> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Nice to have:
> > > >> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML.
> Asciidoc
> > is
> > > >> > easier
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > edit and review.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an
> > additional
> > > >> step
> > > >> > > > that
> > > >> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >> Ismael
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <
> > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >> > Hi all,
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and
> > > website
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > >> same
> > > >> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> > Best,
> > > >> > > > >> > Ismael
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > >> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the
> > > >> website
> > > >> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in
helping
> > us
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > >> move
> > > >> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >> Best,
> > > >> > > > >> >> Ismael
> > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > >> gwen@confluent.io
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind
:)
> > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > >> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can
conclude
> > > with
> > > >> 3
> > > >> > > > binding
> > > >> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
> > > >> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or
> are
> > we
> > > >> > > looking
> > > >> > > > >> for a
> > > >> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> > > >> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> > > >> > > > neha@confluent.io>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It
> helps
> > > to
> > > >> > keep
> > > >> > > > both
> > > >> > > > >> in
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> > > >> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be
> to
> > > code
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > more
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage
> unit
> > > >> tests
> > > >> > > for
> > > >> > > > a
> > > >> > > > >> new
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the
> > same.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how
> > > would
> > > >> > small
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live
> > > >> documentation
> > > >> > > occur
> > > >> > > > >> >>> without
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> a
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > new
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang
> <
> > > >> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping
> one
> > > git
> > > >> > > > history of
> > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> /
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this
> > > >> approach
> > > >> > as
> > > >> > > > well.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen
> Shapira <
> > > >> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit /
> > > >> lower-barrier
> > > >> > > > >> benefits.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which
> > > decouples
> > > >> > > > >> >>> documentation
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc
> > directory,
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only
> one
> > > >> > version
> > > >> > > of
> > > >> > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the
> code.
> > > >> > (unlike
> > > >> > > > >> >>> current SVN
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to
> > HTML
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > PDF
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the
> documentation
> > > of
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > new
> > > >> > > > >> >>> release
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> to
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael
> > Juma <
> > > >> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous
> > > >> discussion on
> > > >> > > > moving
> > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay
> > > said.
> > > >> I
> > > >> > > would
> > > >> > > > >> >>> like to
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website
> > > >> should be
> > > >> > > > part
> > > >> > > > >> of
> > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > same
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball
> > rolling.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and
> > > website,
> > > >> > which
> > > >> > > > >> means:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs
along
> > > with
> > > >> > > > relevant
> > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are
> updated
> > > at
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > same
> > > >> > > > >> >>> time
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the
> relevant
> > > >> code
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only
> > > changes
> > > >> > > > (smaller
> > > >> > > > >> >>> repo,
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > less
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the
> code
> > > Git
> > > >> > > > history
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting
> the
> > > code
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem
> > > Bansal
> > > >> <
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364
> migrating
> > > docs
> > > >> > from
> > > >> > > > svn
> > > >> > > > >> >>> to git
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > came
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much
> > > >> easier. I
> > > >> > > have
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think
> > having
> > > >> > mirror
> > > >> > > > on
> > > >> > > > >> >>> github
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > could
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some
good
> > > >> reason
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > > >> should
> > > >> > > > >> >>> be a
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> --
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > thanks
> > > >> > > > ashish
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > > >> > > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
-- Guozhang
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
I thought Gwen's suggestion was to us a separate folder in the same repo
for docs instead of a separate branch, Gwen can correct me if I was wrong?
Guozhang
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Infra team created git repo for kafka site docs.
>
> Gwen/Guozhang,
> Need your help to create a branch "asf-site" and copy the exiting
> svn contents to that branch.
>
> git repo: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14709630#comment-14709630
>
> Kumar
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the number of tools
> we
> > need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the generated site, we can
> > use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can watch for
> changes
> > on GitHub, etc.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed further.
> > >
> > > 1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
> > > 2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
> > >
> > > kumar
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <
> kumar@nmsworks.co.in>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us to fix
> > > > occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round of
> > voting.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so I'm
> not
> > > >> sure a
> > > >> > new vote is required.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > So I think we have two different approaches here. The original
> > > >> proposal
> > > >> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo,
> and
> > > >> hence
> > > >> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have
> > > >> accumulated
> > > >> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move
> website
> > > into
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel they prefer
> > this
> > > >> over
> > > >> > > the previous approach I would like to call for another round of
> > > >> voting.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Guozhang
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <
> paliwalashish@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in
> Flume.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move
> > changes
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > svn to update website.
> > > >> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes to
> > > >> website
> > > >> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked
> on
> > > is:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest
> revision
> > > of
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > docs
> > > >> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest
> state
> > > of
> > > >> > code)
> > > >> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification,
> you
> > > >> modify
> > > >> > > all
> > > >> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and
> > committed
> > > >> > > together
> > > >> > > > > (ideally)
> > > >> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release and
> > > >> commit
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > SVN
> > > >> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in earlier
> > > docs.
> > > >> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Nice to have:
> > > >> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML.
> Asciidoc
> > is
> > > >> > easier
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > edit and review.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an
> > additional
> > > >> step
> > > >> > > > that
> > > >> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >> Ismael
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <
> > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >> > Hi all,
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and
> > > website
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > >> same
> > > >> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> > Best,
> > > >> > > > >> > Ismael
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > >> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the
> > > >> website
> > > >> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping
> > us
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > >> move
> > > >> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >> Best,
> > > >> > > > >> >> Ismael
> > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > >> gwen@confluent.io
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
> > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > >> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude
> > > with
> > > >> 3
> > > >> > > > binding
> > > >> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
> > > >> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or
> are
> > we
> > > >> > > looking
> > > >> > > > >> for a
> > > >> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> > > >> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> > > >> > > > neha@confluent.io>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It
> helps
> > > to
> > > >> > keep
> > > >> > > > both
> > > >> > > > >> in
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> > > >> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be
> to
> > > code
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > more
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage
> unit
> > > >> tests
> > > >> > > for
> > > >> > > > a
> > > >> > > > >> new
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the
> > same.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how
> > > would
> > > >> > small
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live
> > > >> documentation
> > > >> > > occur
> > > >> > > > >> >>> without
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> a
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > new
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang
> <
> > > >> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping
> one
> > > git
> > > >> > > > history of
> > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> /
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this
> > > >> approach
> > > >> > as
> > > >> > > > well.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen
> Shapira <
> > > >> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit /
> > > >> lower-barrier
> > > >> > > > >> benefits.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which
> > > decouples
> > > >> > > > >> >>> documentation
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc
> > directory,
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only
> one
> > > >> > version
> > > >> > > of
> > > >> > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the
> code.
> > > >> > (unlike
> > > >> > > > >> >>> current SVN
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to
> > HTML
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > PDF
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the
> documentation
> > > of
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > new
> > > >> > > > >> >>> release
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> to
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael
> > Juma <
> > > >> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous
> > > >> discussion on
> > > >> > > > moving
> > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay
> > > said.
> > > >> I
> > > >> > > would
> > > >> > > > >> >>> like to
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website
> > > >> should be
> > > >> > > > part
> > > >> > > > >> of
> > > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > same
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball
> > rolling.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and
> > > website,
> > > >> > which
> > > >> > > > >> means:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along
> > > with
> > > >> > > > relevant
> > > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are
> updated
> > > at
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > same
> > > >> > > > >> >>> time
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the
> relevant
> > > >> code
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only
> > > changes
> > > >> > > > (smaller
> > > >> > > > >> >>> repo,
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > less
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the
> code
> > > Git
> > > >> > > > history
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting
> the
> > > code
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem
> > > Bansal
> > > >> <
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364
> migrating
> > > docs
> > > >> > from
> > > >> > > > svn
> > > >> > > > >> >>> to git
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > came
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much
> > > >> easier. I
> > > >> > > have
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think
> > having
> > > >> > mirror
> > > >> > > > on
> > > >> > > > >> >>> github
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > could
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good
> > > >> reason
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > > >> should
> > > >> > > > >> >>> be a
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> --
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > > >> > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > thanks
> > > >> > > > ashish
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > > >> > > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
-- Guozhang
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>.
Hi,
Infra team created git repo for kafka site docs.
Gwen/Guozhang,
Need your help to create a branch "asf-site" and copy the exiting
svn contents to that branch.
git repo: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/kafka-site.git
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14709630#comment-14709630
Kumar
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the number of tools we
> need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the generated site, we can
> use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can watch for changes
> on GitHub, etc.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed further.
> >
> > 1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
> > 2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
> >
> > kumar
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us to fix
> > > occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round of
> voting.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so I'm not
> > >> sure a
> > >> > new vote is required.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > So I think we have two different approaches here. The original
> > >> proposal
> > >> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo, and
> > >> hence
> > >> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have
> > >> accumulated
> > >> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move website
> > into
> > >> > the
> > >> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel they prefer
> this
> > >> over
> > >> > > the previous approach I would like to call for another round of
> > >> voting.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Guozhang
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <paliwalashish@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in Flume.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move
> changes
> > >> to
> > >> > > > svn to update website.
> > >> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes to
> > >> website
> > >> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> gwen@confluent.io>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked on
> > is:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest revision
> > of
> > >> the
> > >> > > > docs
> > >> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest state
> > of
> > >> > code)
> > >> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification, you
> > >> modify
> > >> > > all
> > >> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and
> committed
> > >> > > together
> > >> > > > > (ideally)
> > >> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release and
> > >> commit
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > SVN
> > >> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in earlier
> > docs.
> > >> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Nice to have:
> > >> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML. Asciidoc
> is
> > >> > easier
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > edit and review.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <
> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an
> additional
> > >> step
> > >> > > > that
> > >> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >> Ismael
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <
> > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >> > Hi all,
> > >> > > > >> >
> > >> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and
> > website
> > >> in
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > >> same
> > >> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
> > >> > > > >> >
> > >> > > > >> >
> > >> > > > >> >
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > >> > > > >> >
> > >> > > > >> > Best,
> > >> > > > >> > Ismael
> > >> > > > >> >
> > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > >> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >> >
> > >> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > >> > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the
> > >> website
> > >> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping
> us
> > >> with
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > >> move
> > >> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > >> > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > >> >> Best,
> > >> > > > >> >> Ismael
> > >> > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > >> gwen@confluent.io
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
> > >> > > > >> >>>
> > >> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > >> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > >> >>>
> > >> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude
> > with
> > >> 3
> > >> > > > binding
> > >> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
> > >> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > >> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are
> we
> > >> > > looking
> > >> > > > >> for a
> > >> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > >> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> > >> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > >> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> > >> > > > neha@confluent.io>
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps
> > to
> > >> > keep
> > >> > > > both
> > >> > > > >> in
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> > >> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to
> > code
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > more
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit
> > >> tests
> > >> > > for
> > >> > > > a
> > >> > > > >> new
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the
> same.
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how
> > would
> > >> > small
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live
> > >> documentation
> > >> > > occur
> > >> > > > >> >>> without
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> a
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > new
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > >> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one
> > git
> > >> > > > history of
> > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> /
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this
> > >> approach
> > >> > as
> > >> > > > well.
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > >> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit /
> > >> lower-barrier
> > >> > > > >> benefits.
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which
> > decouples
> > >> > > > >> >>> documentation
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc
> directory,
> > >> with
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one
> > >> > version
> > >> > > of
> > >> > > > >> the
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code.
> > >> > (unlike
> > >> > > > >> >>> current SVN
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to
> HTML
> > >> and
> > >> > > PDF
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation
> > of
> > >> the
> > >> > > new
> > >> > > > >> >>> release
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> to
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael
> Juma <
> > >> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous
> > >> discussion on
> > >> > > > moving
> > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay
> > said.
> > >> I
> > >> > > would
> > >> > > > >> >>> like to
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website
> > >> should be
> > >> > > > part
> > >> > > > >> of
> > >> > > > >> >>> the
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > same
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball
> rolling.
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and
> > website,
> > >> > which
> > >> > > > >> means:
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along
> > with
> > >> > > > relevant
> > >> > > > >> >>> code
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated
> > at
> > >> the
> > >> > > > same
> > >> > > > >> >>> time
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant
> > >> code
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only
> > changes
> > >> > > > (smaller
> > >> > > > >> >>> repo,
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > less
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code
> > Git
> > >> > > > history
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the
> > code
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem
> > Bansal
> > >> <
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating
> > docs
> > >> > from
> > >> > > > svn
> > >> > > > >> >>> to git
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > came
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much
> > >> easier. I
> > >> > > have
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think
> having
> > >> > mirror
> > >> > > > on
> > >> > > > >> >>> github
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > could
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good
> > >> reason
> > >> > it
> > >> > > > >> should
> > >> > > > >> >>> be a
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> --
> > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > >> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > >> > > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > >> > > > >> >>> >
> > >> > > > >> >>>
> > >> > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > >> >
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > thanks
> > >> > > > ashish
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > >> > > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> -- Guozhang
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
My preference would be to do `2` because it reduces the number of tools we
need to know. If we want to clone the repo for the generated site, we can
use the same tools as we do for the code repo and we can watch for changes
on GitHub, etc.
Ismael
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed further.
>
> 1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
> 2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
>
> kumar
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> wrote:
>
> > Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us to fix
> > occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round of voting.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so I'm not
> >> sure a
> >> > new vote is required.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > So I think we have two different approaches here. The original
> >> proposal
> >> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo, and
> >> hence
> >> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have
> >> accumulated
> >> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move website
> into
> >> > the
> >> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel they prefer this
> >> over
> >> > > the previous approach I would like to call for another round of
> >> voting.
> >> > >
> >> > > Guozhang
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <pa...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in Flume.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move changes
> >> to
> >> > > > svn to update website.
> >> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes to
> >> website
> >> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked on
> is:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest revision
> of
> >> the
> >> > > > docs
> >> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest state
> of
> >> > code)
> >> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification, you
> >> modify
> >> > > all
> >> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and committed
> >> > > together
> >> > > > > (ideally)
> >> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release and
> >> commit
> >> > to
> >> > > > SVN
> >> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in earlier
> docs.
> >> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Nice to have:
> >> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML. Asciidoc is
> >> > easier
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > edit and review.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an additional
> >> step
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> Ismael
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <
> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > Hi all,
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and
> website
> >> in
> >> > > the
> >> > > > >> same
> >> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > Best,
> >> > > > >> > Ismael
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <
> >> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the
> >> website
> >> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us
> >> with
> >> > > the
> >> > > > >> move
> >> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> Best,
> >> > > > >> >> Ismael
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> >> gwen@confluent.io
> >> > >
> >> > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
> >> > > > >> >>>
> >> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> >> > gwen@confluent.io>
> >> > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >>>
> >> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude
> with
> >> 3
> >> > > > binding
> >> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
> >> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> >> > > > >> >>> >
> >> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we
> >> > > looking
> >> > > > >> for a
> >> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> >> > > > >> >>> >
> >> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> >> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> >> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >>> >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> >> > > > >> >>> >>
> >> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> >> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >>> >>
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> >> > > > neha@confluent.io>
> >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps
> to
> >> > keep
> >> > > > both
> >> > > > >> in
> >> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> >> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> >> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to
> code
> >> > the
> >> > > > more
> >> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit
> >> tests
> >> > > for
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > >> new
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how
> would
> >> > small
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live
> >> documentation
> >> > > occur
> >> > > > >> >>> without
> >> > > > >> >>> >> a
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > new
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> >> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one
> git
> >> > > > history of
> >> > > > >> >>> code
> >> > > > >> >>> >> /
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this
> >> approach
> >> > as
> >> > > > well.
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> >> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit /
> >> lower-barrier
> >> > > > >> benefits.
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which
> decouples
> >> > > > >> >>> documentation
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory,
> >> with
> >> > > the
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one
> >> > version
> >> > > of
> >> > > > >> the
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code.
> >> > (unlike
> >> > > > >> >>> current SVN
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML
> >> and
> >> > > PDF
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation
> of
> >> the
> >> > > new
> >> > > > >> >>> release
> >> > > > >> >>> >> to
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
> >> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous
> >> discussion on
> >> > > > moving
> >> > > > >> >>> the
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay
> said.
> >> I
> >> > > would
> >> > > > >> >>> like to
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website
> >> should be
> >> > > > part
> >> > > > >> of
> >> > > > >> >>> the
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > same
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and
> website,
> >> > which
> >> > > > >> means:
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along
> with
> >> > > > relevant
> >> > > > >> >>> code
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated
> at
> >> the
> >> > > > same
> >> > > > >> >>> time
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant
> >> code
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only
> changes
> >> > > > (smaller
> >> > > > >> >>> repo,
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > less
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code
> Git
> >> > > > history
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the
> code
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem
> Bansal
> >> <
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating
> docs
> >> > from
> >> > > > svn
> >> > > > >> >>> to git
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > came
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much
> >> easier. I
> >> > > have
> >> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having
> >> > mirror
> >> > > > on
> >> > > > >> >>> github
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > could
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good
> >> reason
> >> > it
> >> > > > >> should
> >> > > > >> >>> be a
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> >> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> >> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> >> > > > >> >>> >> >
> >> > > > >> >>> >>
> >> > > > >> >>> >>
> >> > > > >> >>> >>
> >> > > > >> >>> >> --
> >> > > > >> >>> >>
> >> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> >> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> >> > > > >> >>> >>
> >> > > > >> >>> >
> >> > > > >> >>> >
> >> > > > >> >>>
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > thanks
> >> > > > ashish
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> >> > > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > -- Guozhang
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> -- Guozhang
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>.
Hi All,
Can we finalize the approach? So that we can proceed further.
1. Gwen's suggestion + existing svn repo
2. Gwen's suggestion + new git repo for docs
kumar
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
wrote:
> Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us to fix
> occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round of voting.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>>
>> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so I'm not
>> sure a
>> > new vote is required.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > So I think we have two different approaches here. The original
>> proposal
>> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo, and
>> hence
>> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have
>> accumulated
>> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move website into
>> > the
>> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel they prefer this
>> over
>> > > the previous approach I would like to call for another round of
>> voting.
>> > >
>> > > Guozhang
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <pa...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in Flume.
>> > > >
>> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move changes
>> to
>> > > > svn to update website.
>> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes to
>> website
>> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked on is:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest revision of
>> the
>> > > > docs
>> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest state of
>> > code)
>> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification, you
>> modify
>> > > all
>> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and committed
>> > > together
>> > > > > (ideally)
>> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release and
>> commit
>> > to
>> > > > SVN
>> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in earlier docs.
>> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Nice to have:
>> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML. Asciidoc is
>> > easier
>> > > > to
>> > > > > edit and review.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an additional
>> step
>> > > > that
>> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Ismael
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > Hi all,
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and website
>> in
>> > > the
>> > > > >> same
>> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Best,
>> > > > >> > Ismael
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <
>> ismael@juma.me.uk>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the
>> website
>> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us
>> with
>> > > the
>> > > > >> move
>> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Best,
>> > > > >> >> Ismael
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <
>> gwen@confluent.io
>> > >
>> > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <
>> > gwen@confluent.io>
>> > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with
>> 3
>> > > > binding
>> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
>> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
>> > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we
>> > > looking
>> > > > >> for a
>> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
>> > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
>> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
>> > > > >> >>> wrote:
>> > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
>> > > > >> >>> >>
>> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
>> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
>> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >>> >>
>> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
>> > > > >> >>> >> >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <
>> > > > neha@confluent.io>
>> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >>> >> >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to
>> > keep
>> > > > both
>> > > > >> in
>> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
>> > > > >> >>> >> > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
>> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
>> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >>> >> > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code
>> > the
>> > > > more
>> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit
>> tests
>> > > for
>> > > > a
>> > > > >> new
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would
>> > small
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live
>> documentation
>> > > occur
>> > > > >> >>> without
>> > > > >> >>> >> a
>> > > > >> >>> >> > new
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
>> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git
>> > > > history of
>> > > > >> >>> code
>> > > > >> >>> >> /
>> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this
>> approach
>> > as
>> > > > well.
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
>> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit /
>> lower-barrier
>> > > > >> benefits.
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
>> > > > >> >>> documentation
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory,
>> with
>> > > the
>> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one
>> > version
>> > > of
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code.
>> > (unlike
>> > > > >> >>> current SVN
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML
>> and
>> > > PDF
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of
>> the
>> > > new
>> > > > >> >>> release
>> > > > >> >>> >> to
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
>> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
>> > > > >> >>> >> >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous
>> discussion on
>> > > > moving
>> > > > >> >>> the
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said.
>> I
>> > > would
>> > > > >> >>> like to
>> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website
>> should be
>> > > > part
>> > > > >> of
>> > > > >> >>> the
>> > > > >> >>> >> > same
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website,
>> > which
>> > > > >> means:
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with
>> > > > relevant
>> > > > >> >>> code
>> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at
>> the
>> > > > same
>> > > > >> >>> time
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant
>> code
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes
>> > > > (smaller
>> > > > >> >>> repo,
>> > > > >> >>> >> > less
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git
>> > > > history
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal
>> <
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs
>> > from
>> > > > svn
>> > > > >> >>> to git
>> > > > >> >>> >> > came
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much
>> easier. I
>> > > have
>> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having
>> > mirror
>> > > > on
>> > > > >> >>> github
>> > > > >> >>> >> > could
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good
>> reason
>> > it
>> > > > >> should
>> > > > >> >>> be a
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
>> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
>> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
>> > > > >> >>> >> > >
>> > > > >> >>> >> >
>> > > > >> >>> >>
>> > > > >> >>> >>
>> > > > >> >>> >>
>> > > > >> >>> >> --
>> > > > >> >>> >>
>> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
>> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
>> > > > >> >>> >>
>> > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > thanks
>> > > > ashish
>> > > >
>> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
>> > > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > -- Guozhang
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -- Guozhang
>>
>
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>.
Also can we migrate svn repo to git repo? This will help us to fix
occasional doc changes/bug fixes through github PR.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round of voting.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so I'm not sure
> a
> > new vote is required.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > So I think we have two different approaches here. The original proposal
> > > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo, and
> hence
> > > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have
> accumulated
> > > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move website into
> > the
> > > same repo under a different folder. If people feel they prefer this
> over
> > > the previous approach I would like to call for another round of voting.
> > >
> > > Guozhang
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <pa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in Flume.
> > > >
> > > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move changes to
> > > > svn to update website.
> > > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes to
> website
> > > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked on is:
> > > > >
> > > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest revision of
> the
> > > > docs
> > > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest state of
> > code)
> > > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification, you
> modify
> > > all
> > > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and committed
> > > together
> > > > > (ideally)
> > > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release and commit
> > to
> > > > SVN
> > > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in earlier docs.
> > > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice to have:
> > > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML. Asciidoc is
> > easier
> > > > to
> > > > > edit and review.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an additional
> step
> > > > that
> > > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ismael
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Hi all,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and website
> in
> > > the
> > > > >> same
> > > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Best,
> > > > >> > Ismael
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <
> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
> > > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us
> with
> > > the
> > > > >> move
> > > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Best,
> > > > >> >> Ismael
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> gwen@confluent.io
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3
> > > > binding
> > > > >> >>> +1, 3
> > > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we
> > > looking
> > > > >> for a
> > > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> > > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> > > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> > > > neha@confluent.io>
> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to
> > keep
> > > > both
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> >>> >> sync.
> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> > > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code
> > the
> > > > more
> > > > >> >>> >> accurate
> > > > >> >>> >> > > they
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit
> tests
> > > for
> > > > a
> > > > >> new
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would
> > small
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation
> > > occur
> > > > >> >>> without
> > > > >> >>> >> a
> > > > >> >>> >> > new
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git
> > > > history of
> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > >> >>> >> /
> > > > >> >>> >> > doc
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach
> > as
> > > > well.
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier
> > > > >> benefits.
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
> > > > >> >>> documentation
> > > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory,
> with
> > > the
> > > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one
> > version
> > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code.
> > (unlike
> > > > >> >>> current SVN
> > > > >> >>> >> > > where
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML
> and
> > > PDF
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of
> the
> > > new
> > > > >> >>> release
> > > > >> >>> >> to
> > > > >> >>> >> > > the
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion
> on
> > > > moving
> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > >> >>> >> > > website
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I
> > > would
> > > > >> >>> like to
> > > > >> >>> >> > see a
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should
> be
> > > > part
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > >> >>> >> > same
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website,
> > which
> > > > >> means:
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with
> > > > relevant
> > > > >> >>> code
> > > > >> >>> >> > changes
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at
> the
> > > > same
> > > > >> >>> time
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes
> > > > (smaller
> > > > >> >>> repo,
> > > > >> >>> >> > less
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git
> > > > history
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
> > > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs
> > from
> > > > svn
> > > > >> >>> to git
> > > > >> >>> >> > came
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier.
> I
> > > have
> > > > >> >>> >> contributed
> > > > >> >>> >> > > to
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having
> > mirror
> > > > on
> > > > >> >>> github
> > > > >> >>> >> > could
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason
> > it
> > > > >> should
> > > > >> >>> be a
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> > > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> >>> >> > > --
> > > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > > >> >>> >> >
> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> >>> >> --
> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > > > >> >>> >>
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > thanks
> > > > ashish
> > > >
> > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- Guozhang
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
Gwen: I remembered it wrong. We would not need another round of voting.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so I'm not sure a
> new vote is required.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So I think we have two different approaches here. The original proposal
> > from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo, and hence
> > have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have accumulated
> > enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move website into
> the
> > same repo under a different folder. If people feel they prefer this over
> > the previous approach I would like to call for another round of voting.
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <pa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in Flume.
> > >
> > > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move changes to
> > > svn to update website.
> > > The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes to website
> > > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked on is:
> > > >
> > > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest revision of the
> > > docs
> > > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest state of
> code)
> > > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification, you modify
> > all
> > > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and committed
> > together
> > > > (ideally)
> > > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release and commit
> to
> > > SVN
> > > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in earlier docs.
> > > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > > >
> > > > Nice to have:
> > > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML. Asciidoc is
> easier
> > > to
> > > > edit and review.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an additional step
> > > that
> > > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ismael
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi all,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and website in
> > the
> > > >> same
> > > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Best,
> > > >> > Ismael
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
> > > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with
> > the
> > > >> move
> > > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Best,
> > > >> >> Ismael
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <gwen@confluent.io
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3
> > > binding
> > > >> >>> +1, 3
> > > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we
> > looking
> > > >> for a
> > > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> > > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> > > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > > >> >>> >> >
> > > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> > > neha@confluent.io>
> > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > >> >>> >> >
> > > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to
> keep
> > > both
> > > >> in
> > > >> >>> >> sync.
> > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> > > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code
> the
> > > more
> > > >> >>> >> accurate
> > > >> >>> >> > > they
> > > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests
> > for
> > > a
> > > >> new
> > > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would
> small
> > > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation
> > occur
> > > >> >>> without
> > > >> >>> >> a
> > > >> >>> >> > new
> > > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git
> > > history of
> > > >> >>> code
> > > >> >>> >> /
> > > >> >>> >> > doc
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach
> as
> > > well.
> > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier
> > > >> benefits.
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
> > > >> >>> documentation
> > > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with
> > the
> > > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one
> version
> > of
> > > >> the
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code.
> (unlike
> > > >> >>> current SVN
> > > >> >>> >> > > where
> > > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and
> > PDF
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the
> > new
> > > >> >>> release
> > > >> >>> >> to
> > > >> >>> >> > > the
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > >> >>> >> >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on
> > > moving
> > > >> >>> the
> > > >> >>> >> > > website
> > > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I
> > would
> > > >> >>> like to
> > > >> >>> >> > see a
> > > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be
> > > part
> > > >> of
> > > >> >>> the
> > > >> >>> >> > same
> > > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website,
> which
> > > >> means:
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with
> > > relevant
> > > >> >>> code
> > > >> >>> >> > changes
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the
> > > same
> > > >> >>> time
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes
> > > (smaller
> > > >> >>> repo,
> > > >> >>> >> > less
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git
> > > history
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
> > > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs
> from
> > > svn
> > > >> >>> to git
> > > >> >>> >> > came
> > > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I
> > have
> > > >> >>> >> contributed
> > > >> >>> >> > > to
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having
> mirror
> > > on
> > > >> >>> github
> > > >> >>> >> > could
> > > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason
> it
> > > >> should
> > > >> >>> be a
> > > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> > > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > >> >>> >> > > >
> > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> >>> >> > > --
> > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > > >> >>> >> > >
> > > >> >>> >> >
> > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> >>> >> --
> > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > > >> >>> >>
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > thanks
> > > ashish
> > >
> > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
> >
>
--
-- Guozhang
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>.
Looking back at this thread, the +1 mention "same repo", so I'm not sure a
new vote is required.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I think we have two different approaches here. The original proposal
> from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo, and hence
> have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have accumulated
> enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move website into the
> same repo under a different folder. If people feel they prefer this over
> the previous approach I would like to call for another round of voting.
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in Flume.
> >
> > All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move changes to
> > svn to update website.
> > The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes to website
> > outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked on is:
> > >
> > > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest revision of the
> > docs
> > > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest state of code)
> > > * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification, you modify
> all
> > > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and committed
> together
> > > (ideally)
> > > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release and commit to
> > SVN
> > > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in earlier docs.
> > > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> > >
> > > Nice to have:
> > > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML. Asciidoc is easier
> > to
> > > edit and review.
> > >
> > > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an additional step
> > that
> > >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
> > >>
> > >> Ismael
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> >
> > >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and website in
> the
> > >> same
> > >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> > >> >
> > >> > Best,
> > >> > Ismael
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi Gwen,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
> > >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with
> the
> > >> move
> > >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Best,
> > >> >> Ismael
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3
> > binding
> > >> >>> +1, 3
> > >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we
> looking
> > >> for a
> > >> >>> > volunteer?
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > >> >>> wrote:
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> > >> >>> >>
> > >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> > >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > >> >>> >>
> > >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > >> >>> >> >
> > >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> > neha@confluent.io>
> > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > >> >>> >> >
> > >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep
> > both
> > >> in
> > >> >>> >> sync.
> > >> >>> >> > >
> > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > >> >>> >> wrote:
> > >> >>> >> > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the
> > more
> > >> >>> >> accurate
> > >> >>> >> > > they
> > >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests
> for
> > a
> > >> new
> > >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
> > >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation
> occur
> > >> >>> without
> > >> >>> >> a
> > >> >>> >> > new
> > >> >>> >> > > > release?
> > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git
> > history of
> > >> >>> code
> > >> >>> >> /
> > >> >>> >> > doc
> > >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as
> > well.
> > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> > >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier
> > >> benefits.
> > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
> > >> >>> documentation
> > >> >>> >> > > changes
> > >> >>> >> > > > > from
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with
> the
> > >> >>> >> > documentation
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version
> of
> > >> the
> > >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike
> > >> >>> current SVN
> > >> >>> >> > > where
> > >> >>> >> > > > we
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and
> PDF
> > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the
> new
> > >> >>> release
> > >> >>> >> to
> > >> >>> >> > > the
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > >> >>> >> >
> > >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on
> > moving
> > >> >>> the
> > >> >>> >> > > website
> > >> >>> >> > > > to
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I
> would
> > >> >>> like to
> > >> >>> >> > see a
> > >> >>> >> > > > bit
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be
> > part
> > >> of
> > >> >>> the
> > >> >>> >> > same
> > >> >>> >> > > > repo
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which
> > >> means:
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with
> > relevant
> > >> >>> code
> > >> >>> >> > changes
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the
> > same
> > >> >>> time
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes
> > (smaller
> > >> >>> repo,
> > >> >>> >> > less
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git
> > history
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
> > >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from
> > svn
> > >> >>> to git
> > >> >>> >> > came
> > >> >>> >> > > > up.
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I
> have
> > >> >>> >> contributed
> > >> >>> >> > > to
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror
> > on
> > >> >>> github
> > >> >>> >> > could
> > >> >>> >> > > > be
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it
> > >> should
> > >> >>> be a
> > >> >>> >> > > > separate
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > > --
> > >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > >> >>> >> > > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> >>> >> > > > --
> > >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> > >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> > >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > >> >>> >> > > >
> > >> >>> >> > >
> > >> >>> >> > >
> > >> >>> >> > >
> > >> >>> >> > > --
> > >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> > >> >>> >> > > Neha
> > >> >>> >> > >
> > >> >>> >> >
> > >> >>> >>
> > >> >>> >>
> > >> >>> >>
> > >> >>> >> --
> > >> >>> >>
> > >> >>> >> Regards,
> > >> >>> >> Ashish
> > >> >>> >>
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > thanks
> > ashish
> >
> > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
So I think we have two different approaches here. The original proposal
from Aseem is to move website from SVN to a separate Git repo, and hence
have separate commits on code / doc changes. For that we have accumulated
enough binging +1s to move on; Gwen's proposal is to move website into the
same repo under a different folder. If people feel they prefer this over
the previous approach I would like to call for another round of voting.
Guozhang
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ashish <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in Flume.
>
> All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move changes to
> svn to update website.
> The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes to website
> outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked on is:
> >
> > * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest revision of the
> docs
> > (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest state of code)
> > * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification, you modify all
> > relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and committed together
> > (ideally)
> > * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release and commit to
> SVN
> > website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in earlier docs.
> > * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
> >
> > Nice to have:
> > * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML. Asciidoc is easier
> to
> > edit and review.
> >
> > I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an additional step
> that
> >> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
> >>
> >> Ismael
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and website in the
> >> same
> >> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > Ismael
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Gwen,
> >> >>
> >> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
> >> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the
> >> move
> >> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best,
> >> >> Ismael
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3
> binding
> >> >>> +1, 3
> >> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking
> >> for a
> >> >>> > volunteer?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> asingh@cloudera.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> >> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> neha@confluent.io>
> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep
> both
> >> in
> >> >>> >> sync.
> >> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the
> more
> >> >>> >> accurate
> >> >>> >> > > they
> >> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for
> a
> >> new
> >> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> >> >>> >> > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
> >> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur
> >> >>> without
> >> >>> >> a
> >> >>> >> > new
> >> >>> >> > > > release?
> >> >>> >> > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> >> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> >> >>> >> > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git
> history of
> >> >>> code
> >> >>> >> /
> >> >>> >> > doc
> >> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as
> well.
> >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> >> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> >> >>> >> > > wrote:
> >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier
> >> benefits.
> >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
> >> >>> documentation
> >> >>> >> > > changes
> >> >>> >> > > > > from
> >> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the
> >> >>> >> > documentation
> >> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of
> >> the
> >> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> >> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike
> >> >>> current SVN
> >> >>> >> > > where
> >> >>> >> > > > we
> >> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
> >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new
> >> >>> release
> >> >>> >> to
> >> >>> >> > > the
> >> >>> >> > > > > > website
> >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
> >> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on
> moving
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> >> > > website
> >> >>> >> > > > to
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would
> >> >>> like to
> >> >>> >> > see a
> >> >>> >> > > > bit
> >> >>> >> > > > > > of
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be
> part
> >> of
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> >> > same
> >> >>> >> > > > repo
> >> >>> >> > > > > > as
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which
> >> means:
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with
> relevant
> >> >>> code
> >> >>> >> > changes
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the
> same
> >> >>> time
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes
> (smaller
> >> >>> repo,
> >> >>> >> > less
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git
> history
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
> >> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from
> svn
> >> >>> to git
> >> >>> >> > came
> >> >>> >> > > > up.
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have
> >> >>> >> contributed
> >> >>> >> > > to
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror
> on
> >> >>> github
> >> >>> >> > could
> >> >>> >> > > > be
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it
> >> should
> >> >>> be a
> >> >>> >> > > > separate
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > > --
> >> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> >> >>> >> > > > >
> >> >>> >> > > >
> >> >>> >> > > >
> >> >>> >> > > >
> >> >>> >> > > > --
> >> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> >> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> >> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> >> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> >> >>> >> > > >
> >> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >> > > --
> >> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> >> >>> >> > > Neha
> >> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> --
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Regards,
> >> >>> >> Ashish
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> thanks
> ashish
>
> Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
>
--
-- Guozhang
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ashish <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1 to what Gwen has suggested. This is what we follow in Flume.
All the latest doc changes are in git, once ready you move changes to
svn to update website.
The only catch is, when you need to update specific changes to website
outside release cycle, need to be a bit careful :)
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked on is:
>
> * The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest revision of the docs
> (not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest state of code)
> * When you submit a patch that requires doc modification, you modify all
> relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and committed together
> (ideally)
> * When we release, we copy the docs matching the release and commit to SVN
> website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in earlier docs.
> * Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
>
> Nice to have:
> * Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML. Asciidoc is easier to
> edit and review.
>
> I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an additional step that
>> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
>>
>> Ismael
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and website in the
>> same
>> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Ismael
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Gwen,
>> >>
>> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
>> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the
>> move
>> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Ismael
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding
>> >>> +1, 3
>> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking
>> for a
>> >>> > volunteer?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
>> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@confluent.io>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both
>> in
>> >>> >> sync.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
>> ghenke@cloudera.com>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more
>> >>> >> accurate
>> >>> >> > > they
>> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a
>> new
>> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
>> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur
>> >>> without
>> >>> >> a
>> >>> >> > new
>> >>> >> > > > release?
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
>> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> > > wrote:
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of
>> >>> code
>> >>> >> /
>> >>> >> > doc
>> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
>> >>> >> > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
>> >>> >> > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
>> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
>> >>> >> > > wrote:
>> >>> >> > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier
>> benefits.
>> >>> >> > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
>> >>> documentation
>> >>> >> > > changes
>> >>> >> > > > > from
>> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
>> >>> >> > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the
>> >>> >> > documentation
>> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of
>> the
>> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
>> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike
>> >>> current SVN
>> >>> >> > > where
>> >>> >> > > > we
>> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
>> >>> >> > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
>> >>> >> > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new
>> >>> release
>> >>> >> to
>> >>> >> > > the
>> >>> >> > > > > > website
>> >>> >> > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
>> >>> >> > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
>> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >>> >> > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
>> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving
>> >>> the
>> >>> >> > > website
>> >>> >> > > > to
>> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
>> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
>> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would
>> >>> like to
>> >>> >> > see a
>> >>> >> > > > bit
>> >>> >> > > > > > of
>> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part
>> of
>> >>> the
>> >>> >> > same
>> >>> >> > > > repo
>> >>> >> > > > > > as
>> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
>> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
>> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which
>> means:
>> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant
>> >>> code
>> >>> >> > changes
>> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same
>> >>> time
>> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
>> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
>> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
>> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller
>> >>> repo,
>> >>> >> > less
>> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
>> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
>> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
>> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
>> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
>> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
>> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
>> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
>> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
>> >>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn
>> >>> to git
>> >>> >> > came
>> >>> >> > > > up.
>> >>> >> > > > > > > That
>> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have
>> >>> >> contributed
>> >>> >> > > to
>> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on
>> >>> github
>> >>> >> > could
>> >>> >> > > > be
>> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
>> >>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it
>> should
>> >>> be a
>> >>> >> > > > separate
>> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
>> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
>> >>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
>> >>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
>> >>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > >
>> >>> >> > > > > --
>> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
>> >>> >> > > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > --
>> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
>> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
>> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
>> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > --
>> >>> >> > > Thanks,
>> >>> >> > > Neha
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> --
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Regards,
>> >>> >> Ashish
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
--
thanks
ashish
Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>.
Yeah, so the way this works in few other projects I worked on is:
* The code repo has a /docs directory with the latest revision of the docs
(not multiple versions, just one that matches the latest state of code)
* When you submit a patch that requires doc modification, you modify all
relevant files in same patch and they get reviewed and committed together
(ideally)
* When we release, we copy the docs matching the release and commit to SVN
website. We also do this occasionally to fix bugs in earlier docs.
* Release artifacts include a copy of the docs
Nice to have:
* Docs are in Asciidoc and build generates the HTML. Asciidoc is easier to
edit and review.
I suggest a similar process for Kafka.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an additional step that
> moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and website in the
> same
> > commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
> >
> > Best,
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Gwen,
> >>
> >> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
> >> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the
> move
> >> so I pinged him in the issue.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Ismael
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding
> >>> +1, 3
> >>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> >>> >
> >>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking
> for a
> >>> > volunteer?
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> +1 on same repo.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> >>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@confluent.io>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both
> in
> >>> >> sync.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more
> >>> >> accurate
> >>> >> > > they
> >>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a
> new
> >>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
> >>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur
> >>> without
> >>> >> a
> >>> >> > new
> >>> >> > > > release?
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> >>> >> > > wrote:
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of
> >>> code
> >>> >> /
> >>> >> > doc
> >>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > Guozhang
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> >>> gwen@confluent.io>
> >>> >> > > wrote:
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier
> benefits.
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
> >>> documentation
> >>> >> > > changes
> >>> >> > > > > from
> >>> >> > > > > > website changes:
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the
> >>> >> > documentation
> >>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of
> the
> >>> >> > > > > documentation,
> >>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike
> >>> current SVN
> >>> >> > > where
> >>> >> > > > we
> >>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new
> >>> release
> >>> >> to
> >>> >> > > the
> >>> >> > > > > > website
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > Gwen
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
> >>> ismael@juma.me.uk
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving
> >>> the
> >>> >> > > website
> >>> >> > > > to
> >>> >> > > > > > > Git:
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would
> >>> like to
> >>> >> > see a
> >>> >> > > > bit
> >>> >> > > > > > of
> >>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part
> of
> >>> the
> >>> >> > same
> >>> >> > > > repo
> >>> >> > > > > > as
> >>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> >>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which
> means:
> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant
> >>> code
> >>> >> > changes
> >>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same
> >>> time
> >>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> >>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> >>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller
> >>> repo,
> >>> >> > less
> >>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> >>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
> >>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > Best,
> >>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
> >>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> >>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn
> >>> to git
> >>> >> > came
> >>> >> > > > up.
> >>> >> > > > > > > That
> >>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have
> >>> >> contributed
> >>> >> > > to
> >>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on
> >>> github
> >>> >> > could
> >>> >> > > > be
> >>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it
> should
> >>> be a
> >>> >> > > > separate
> >>> >> > > > > > > repo.
> >>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> >>> >> > > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > --
> >>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > --
> >>> >> > > > Grant Henke
> >>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> >>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> >>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > --
> >>> >> > > Thanks,
> >>> >> > > Neha
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Regards,
> >>> >> Ashish
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
I should clarify: it's not possible unless we add an additional step that
moves the docs from the code repo to the website repo.
Ismael
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and website in the same
> commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
>
> Best,
> Ismael
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi Gwen,
>>
>> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
>> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the move
>> so I pinged him in the issue.
>>
>> Best,
>> Ismael
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding
>>> +1, 3
>>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
>>> >
>>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking for a
>>> > volunteer?
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> +1 on same repo.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
>>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@confluent.io>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in
>>> >> sync.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more
>>> >> accurate
>>> >> > > they
>>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new
>>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
>>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur
>>> without
>>> >> a
>>> >> > new
>>> >> > > > release?
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
>>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of
>>> code
>>> >> /
>>> >> > doc
>>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > > Guozhang
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
>>> gwen@confluent.io>
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
>>> documentation
>>> >> > > changes
>>> >> > > > > from
>>> >> > > > > > website changes:
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the
>>> >> > documentation
>>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the
>>> >> > > > > documentation,
>>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike
>>> current SVN
>>> >> > > where
>>> >> > > > we
>>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new
>>> release
>>> >> to
>>> >> > > the
>>> >> > > > > > website
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > Gwen
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
>>> ismael@juma.me.uk
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > > wrote:
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving
>>> the
>>> >> > > website
>>> >> > > > to
>>> >> > > > > > > Git:
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would
>>> like to
>>> >> > see a
>>> >> > > > bit
>>> >> > > > > > of
>>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part of
>>> the
>>> >> > same
>>> >> > > > repo
>>> >> > > > > > as
>>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
>>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which means:
>>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant
>>> code
>>> >> > changes
>>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same
>>> time
>>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
>>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
>>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller
>>> repo,
>>> >> > less
>>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
>>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
>>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > Best,
>>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
>>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
>>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
>>> >> > > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn
>>> to git
>>> >> > came
>>> >> > > > up.
>>> >> > > > > > > That
>>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have
>>> >> contributed
>>> >> > > to
>>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on
>>> github
>>> >> > could
>>> >> > > > be
>>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
>>> >> > > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should
>>> be a
>>> >> > > > separate
>>> >> > > > > > > repo.
>>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
>>> >> > > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
>>> >> > > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
>>> >> > > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > > --
>>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > --
>>> >> > > > Grant Henke
>>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
>>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
>>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > --
>>> >> > > Thanks,
>>> >> > > Neha
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >> Ashish
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
Hi all,
It looks like it's not feasible to update the code and website in the same
commit given existing limitations of the Apache infra:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143?focusedCommentId=14703175&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14703175
Best,
Ismael
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> Hi Gwen,
>
> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the move
> so I pinged him in the issue.
>
> Best,
> Ismael
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
>> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>>
>> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding
>> +1, 3
>> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
>> >
>> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking for a
>> > volunteer?
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> +1 on same repo.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
>> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@confluent.io>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in
>> >> sync.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more
>> >> accurate
>> >> > > they
>> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new
>> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
>> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur
>> without
>> >> a
>> >> > new
>> >> > > > release?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of
>> code
>> >> /
>> >> > doc
>> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Guozhang
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
>> gwen@confluent.io>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
>> documentation
>> >> > > changes
>> >> > > > > from
>> >> > > > > > website changes:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the
>> >> > documentation
>> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the
>> >> > > > > documentation,
>> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike current
>> SVN
>> >> > > where
>> >> > > > we
>> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new
>> release
>> >> to
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > > website
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Gwen
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
>> ismael@juma.me.uk
>> >> >
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving
>> the
>> >> > > website
>> >> > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > Git:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like
>> to
>> >> > see a
>> >> > > > bit
>> >> > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part of
>> the
>> >> > same
>> >> > > > repo
>> >> > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
>> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which means:
>> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant code
>> >> > changes
>> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same time
>> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
>> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
>> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller
>> repo,
>> >> > less
>> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
>> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
>> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Best,
>> >> > > > > > > Ismael
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
>> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Hi
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to
>> git
>> >> > came
>> >> > > > up.
>> >> > > > > > > That
>> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have
>> >> contributed
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on
>> github
>> >> > could
>> >> > > > be
>> >> > > > > > > > useful.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should
>> be a
>> >> > > > separate
>> >> > > > > > > repo.
>> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > --
>> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --
>> >> > > > Grant Henke
>> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
>> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
>> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > > Neha
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Ashish
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>.
yes. we can not. we need two separate github PRs for code and doc changes.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even under the second option, it sounds like we still cannot include the
> code and doc changes in one commit?
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> wrote:
>
> > oops.. i did not check Ismail's mail.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We have raised a Apache Infra ticket for migrating site docs from svn
> > > -> git .
> > > Currently, the gitwcsub client only supports using the "asf-site"
> > > branch for site docs.
> > > Infra team is suggesting to create new git repo for site docs.
> > >
> > > Infra ticket here:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143
> > >
> > > Possible Options:
> > > 1. Maintain code and docs in same repo, but on different branches
> > > (trunk and asf-site)
> > > 2. Create a new git repo for docs and integrate with gitwcsub.
> > >
> > > I vote for second option.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kumar
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> > edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> FYI, I created a tiny trivial patch to address a typo in the web site
> > >> (KAFKA-2418), so maybe you can review it and eventually commit before
> > >> moving to github. ;)
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Eddie
> > >> Em 12/08/2015 06:01, "Ismael Juma" <is...@juma.me.uk> escreveu:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Gwen,
> > >> >
> > >> > I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
> > >> > documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the
> > >> move
> > >> > so I pinged him in the issue.
> > >> >
> > >> > Best,
> > >> > Ismael
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3
> > binding
> > >> > +1,
> > >> > > 3
> > >> > > > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we
> looking
> > >> for a
> > >> > > > volunteer?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> > asingh@cloudera.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> +1 on same repo.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> > >> > > >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> > neha@confluent.io
> > >> >
> > >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep
> > >> both in
> > >> > > >> sync.
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> > >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the
> > more
> > >> > > >> accurate
> > >> > > >> > > they
> > >> > > >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests
> for
> > a
> > >> new
> > >> > > >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
> > >> > > >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation
> occur
> > >> > > without
> > >> > > >> a
> > >> > > >> > new
> > >> > > >> > > > release?
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > >> > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git
> history
> > >> of
> > >> > > code
> > >> > > >> /
> > >> > > >> > doc
> > >> > > >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as
> > >> well.
> > >> > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > Guozhang
> > >> > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > >> > gwen@confluent.io
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier
> > >> benefits.
> > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
> > >> > documentation
> > >> > > >> > > changes
> > >> > > >> > > > > from
> > >> > > >> > > > > > website changes:
> > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with
> the
> > >> > > >> > documentation
> > >> > > >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version
> of
> > >> the
> > >> > > >> > > > > documentation,
> > >> > > >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike
> > >> current
> > >> > > SVN
> > >> > > >> > > where
> > >> > > >> > > > we
> > >> > > >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and
> PDF
> > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the
> new
> > >> > > release
> > >> > > >> to
> > >> > > >> > > the
> > >> > > >> > > > > > website
> > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > Gwen
> > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > >> > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on
> > >> moving
> > >> > the
> > >> > > >> > > website
> > >> > > >> > > > to
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > Git:
> > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I
> would
> > >> like
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > >> > see a
> > >> > > >> > > > bit
> > >> > > >> > > > > > of
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be
> > part
> > >> of
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > >> > same
> > >> > > >> > > > repo
> > >> > > >> > > > > > as
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which
> > >> means:
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with
> > relevant
> > >> > code
> > >> > > >> > changes
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the
> > same
> > >> > time
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes
> > (smaller
> > >> > > repo,
> > >> > > >> > less
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git
> > history
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > Best,
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
> > >> > > >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from
> > >> svn to
> > >> > > git
> > >> > > >> > came
> > >> > > >> > > > up.
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > That
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I
> have
> > >> > > >> contributed
> > >> > > >> > > to
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror
> > on
> > >> > > github
> > >> > > >> > could
> > >> > > >> > > > be
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it
> > >> should
> > >> > > be a
> > >> > > >> > > > separate
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > repo.
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > > --
> > >> > > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > >> > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > > --
> > >> > > >> > > > Grant Henke
> > >> > > >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > >> > > >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> > >> > > >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > --
> > >> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > >> > > Neha
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> --
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Regards,
> > >> > > >> Ashish
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
Even under the second option, it sounds like we still cannot include the
code and doc changes in one commit?
Guozhang
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
wrote:
> oops.. i did not check Ismail's mail.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have raised a Apache Infra ticket for migrating site docs from svn
> > -> git .
> > Currently, the gitwcsub client only supports using the "asf-site"
> > branch for site docs.
> > Infra team is suggesting to create new git repo for site docs.
> >
> > Infra ticket here:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143
> >
> > Possible Options:
> > 1. Maintain code and docs in same repo, but on different branches
> > (trunk and asf-site)
> > 2. Create a new git repo for docs and integrate with gitwcsub.
> >
> > I vote for second option.
> >
> >
> > Kumar
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> FYI, I created a tiny trivial patch to address a typo in the web site
> >> (KAFKA-2418), so maybe you can review it and eventually commit before
> >> moving to github. ;)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Eddie
> >> Em 12/08/2015 06:01, "Ismael Juma" <is...@juma.me.uk> escreveu:
> >>
> >> > Hi Gwen,
> >> >
> >> > I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
> >> > documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the
> >> move
> >> > so I pinged him in the issue.
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > Ismael
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3
> binding
> >> > +1,
> >> > > 3
> >> > > > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking
> >> for a
> >> > > > volunteer?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <
> asingh@cloudera.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> +1 on same repo.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> >> > > >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> neha@confluent.io
> >> >
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep
> >> both in
> >> > > >> sync.
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> >> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the
> more
> >> > > >> accurate
> >> > > >> > > they
> >> > > >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for
> a
> >> new
> >> > > >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
> >> > > >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur
> >> > > without
> >> > > >> a
> >> > > >> > new
> >> > > >> > > > release?
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> >> > wangguoz@gmail.com
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history
> >> of
> >> > > code
> >> > > >> /
> >> > > >> > doc
> >> > > >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as
> >> well.
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > Guozhang
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> >> > gwen@confluent.io
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier
> >> benefits.
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
> >> > documentation
> >> > > >> > > changes
> >> > > >> > > > > from
> >> > > >> > > > > > website changes:
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the
> >> > > >> > documentation
> >> > > >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of
> >> the
> >> > > >> > > > > documentation,
> >> > > >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike
> >> current
> >> > > SVN
> >> > > >> > > where
> >> > > >> > > > we
> >> > > >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new
> >> > > release
> >> > > >> to
> >> > > >> > > the
> >> > > >> > > > > > website
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > Gwen
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
> >> > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on
> >> moving
> >> > the
> >> > > >> > > website
> >> > > >> > > > to
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Git:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would
> >> like
> >> > > to
> >> > > >> > see a
> >> > > >> > > > bit
> >> > > >> > > > > > of
> >> > > >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be
> part
> >> of
> >> > > the
> >> > > >> > same
> >> > > >> > > > repo
> >> > > >> > > > > > as
> >> > > >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> >> > > >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which
> >> means:
> >> > > >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with
> relevant
> >> > code
> >> > > >> > changes
> >> > > >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the
> same
> >> > time
> >> > > >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> >> > > >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> >> > > >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes
> (smaller
> >> > > repo,
> >> > > >> > less
> >> > > >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> >> > > >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git
> history
> >> > > >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Best,
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Ismael
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
> >> > > >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> >> > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > > Hi
> >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from
> >> svn to
> >> > > git
> >> > > >> > came
> >> > > >> > > > up.
> >> > > >> > > > > > > That
> >> > > >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have
> >> > > >> contributed
> >> > > >> > > to
> >> > > >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror
> on
> >> > > github
> >> > > >> > could
> >> > > >> > > > be
> >> > > >> > > > > > > > useful.
> >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it
> >> should
> >> > > be a
> >> > > >> > > > separate
> >> > > >> > > > > > > repo.
> >> > > >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > --
> >> > > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > --
> >> > > >> > > > Grant Henke
> >> > > >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> >> > > >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> >> > > >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > --
> >> > > >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > >> > > Neha
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Regards,
> >> > > >> Ashish
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
-- Guozhang
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>.
oops.. i did not check Ismail's mail.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have raised a Apache Infra ticket for migrating site docs from svn
> -> git .
> Currently, the gitwcsub client only supports using the "asf-site"
> branch for site docs.
> Infra team is suggesting to create new git repo for site docs.
>
> Infra ticket here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143
>
> Possible Options:
> 1. Maintain code and docs in same repo, but on different branches
> (trunk and asf-site)
> 2. Create a new git repo for docs and integrate with gitwcsub.
>
> I vote for second option.
>
>
> Kumar
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Edward Ribeiro <ed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> FYI, I created a tiny trivial patch to address a typo in the web site
>> (KAFKA-2418), so maybe you can review it and eventually commit before
>> moving to github. ;)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Eddie
>> Em 12/08/2015 06:01, "Ismael Juma" <is...@juma.me.uk> escreveu:
>>
>> > Hi Gwen,
>> >
>> > I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
>> > documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the
>> move
>> > so I pinged him in the issue.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Ismael
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding
>> > +1,
>> > > 3
>> > > > non-binding +1 and no -1.
>> > > >
>> > > > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking
>> for a
>> > > > volunteer?
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> +1 on same repo.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
>> > > >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <neha@confluent.io
>> >
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep
>> both in
>> > > >> sync.
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
>> ghenke@cloudera.com>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more
>> > > >> accurate
>> > > >> > > they
>> > > >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a
>> new
>> > > >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
>> > > >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur
>> > > without
>> > > >> a
>> > > >> > new
>> > > >> > > > release?
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
>> > wangguoz@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history
>> of
>> > > code
>> > > >> /
>> > > >> > doc
>> > > >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as
>> well.
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > Guozhang
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
>> > gwen@confluent.io
>> > > >
>> > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier
>> benefits.
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
>> > documentation
>> > > >> > > changes
>> > > >> > > > > from
>> > > >> > > > > > website changes:
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the
>> > > >> > documentation
>> > > >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of
>> the
>> > > >> > > > > documentation,
>> > > >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike
>> current
>> > > SVN
>> > > >> > > where
>> > > >> > > > we
>> > > >> > > > > > have directories per version)
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new
>> > > release
>> > > >> to
>> > > >> > > the
>> > > >> > > > > > website
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > Gwen
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
>> > > ismael@juma.me.uk
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on
>> moving
>> > the
>> > > >> > > website
>> > > >> > > > to
>> > > >> > > > > > > Git:
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would
>> like
>> > > to
>> > > >> > see a
>> > > >> > > > bit
>> > > >> > > > > > of
>> > > >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part
>> of
>> > > the
>> > > >> > same
>> > > >> > > > repo
>> > > >> > > > > > as
>> > > >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
>> > > >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which
>> means:
>> > > >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant
>> > code
>> > > >> > changes
>> > > >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same
>> > time
>> > > >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
>> > > >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
>> > > >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller
>> > > repo,
>> > > >> > less
>> > > >> > > > > > > verification needed)
>> > > >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
>> > > >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > Best,
>> > > >> > > > > > > Ismael
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
>> > > >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
>> > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > Hi
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from
>> svn to
>> > > git
>> > > >> > came
>> > > >> > > > up.
>> > > >> > > > > > > That
>> > > >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have
>> > > >> contributed
>> > > >> > > to
>> > > >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on
>> > > github
>> > > >> > could
>> > > >> > > > be
>> > > >> > > > > > > > useful.
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it
>> should
>> > > be a
>> > > >> > > > separate
>> > > >> > > > > > > repo.
>> > > >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
>> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > --
>> > > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > --
>> > > >> > > > Grant Henke
>> > > >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
>> > > >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
>> > > >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > --
>> > > >> > > Thanks,
>> > > >> > > Neha
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Regards,
>> > > >> Ashish
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Manikumar Reddy <ku...@nmsworks.co.in>.
Hi,
We have raised a Apache Infra ticket for migrating site docs from svn ->
git .
Currently, the gitwcsub client only supports using the "asf-site" branch
for site docs.
Infra team is suggesting to create new git repo for site docs.
Infra ticket here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10143
Possible Options:
1. Maintain code and docs in same repo, but on different branches (trunk
and asf-site)
2. Create a new git repo for docs and integrate with gitwcsub.
I vote for second option.
Kumar
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Edward Ribeiro <ed...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> FYI, I created a tiny trivial patch to address a typo in the web site
> (KAFKA-2418), so maybe you can review it and eventually commit before
> moving to github. ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Eddie
> Em 12/08/2015 06:01, "Ismael Juma" <is...@juma.me.uk> escreveu:
>
> > Hi Gwen,
> >
> > I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
> > documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the move
> > so I pinged him in the issue.
> >
> > Best,
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding
> > +1,
> > > 3
> > > > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > > >
> > > > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking
> for a
> > > > volunteer?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +1 on same repo.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> > > >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@confluent.io>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both
> in
> > > >> sync.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <
> ghenke@cloudera.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more
> > > >> accurate
> > > >> > > they
> > > >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a
> new
> > > >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
> > > >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur
> > > without
> > > >> a
> > > >> > new
> > > >> > > > release?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of
> > > code
> > > >> /
> > > >> > doc
> > > >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Guozhang
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > gwen@confluent.io
> > > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier
> benefits.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
> > documentation
> > > >> > > changes
> > > >> > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > website changes:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the
> > > >> > documentation
> > > >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of
> the
> > > >> > > > > documentation,
> > > >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike
> current
> > > SVN
> > > >> > > where
> > > >> > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new
> > > release
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > website
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Gwen
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving
> > the
> > > >> > > website
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > Git:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would
> like
> > > to
> > > >> > see a
> > > >> > > > bit
> > > >> > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part
> of
> > > the
> > > >> > same
> > > >> > > > repo
> > > >> > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which
> means:
> > > >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant
> > code
> > > >> > changes
> > > >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same
> > time
> > > >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > > >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller
> > > repo,
> > > >> > less
> > > >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
> > > >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Best,
> > > >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
> > > >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn
> to
> > > git
> > > >> > came
> > > >> > > > up.
> > > >> > > > > > > That
> > > >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have
> > > >> contributed
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on
> > > github
> > > >> > could
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it
> should
> > > be a
> > > >> > > > separate
> > > >> > > > > > > repo.
> > > >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > Grant Henke
> > > >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> > > >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > Neha
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> Ashish
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Edward Ribeiro <ed...@gmail.com>.
FYI, I created a tiny trivial patch to address a typo in the web site
(KAFKA-2418), so maybe you can review it and eventually commit before
moving to github. ;)
Cheers,
Eddie
Em 12/08/2015 06:01, "Ismael Juma" <is...@juma.me.uk> escreveu:
> Hi Gwen,
>
> I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
> documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the move
> so I pinged him in the issue.
>
> Best,
> Ismael
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding
> +1,
> > 3
> > > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> > >
> > > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking for a
> > > volunteer?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 on same repo.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> > >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@confluent.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in
> > >> sync.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more
> > >> accurate
> > >> > > they
> > >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new
> > >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
> > >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur
> > without
> > >> a
> > >> > new
> > >> > > > release?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> wangguoz@gmail.com
> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of
> > code
> > >> /
> > >> > doc
> > >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Guozhang
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> gwen@confluent.io
> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples
> documentation
> > >> > > changes
> > >> > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > website changes:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the
> > >> > documentation
> > >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the
> > >> > > > > documentation,
> > >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike current
> > SVN
> > >> > > where
> > >> > > > we
> > >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new
> > release
> > >> to
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > website
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Gwen
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > >> >
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving
> the
> > >> > > website
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > Git:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like
> > to
> > >> > see a
> > >> > > > bit
> > >> > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part of
> > the
> > >> > same
> > >> > > > repo
> > >> > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which means:
> > >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant
> code
> > >> > changes
> > >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same
> time
> > >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller
> > repo,
> > >> > less
> > >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
> > >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Best,
> > >> > > > > > > Ismael
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
> > >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Hi
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to
> > git
> > >> > came
> > >> > > > up.
> > >> > > > > > > That
> > >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have
> > >> contributed
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on
> > github
> > >> > could
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > useful.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should
> > be a
> > >> > > > separate
> > >> > > > > > > repo.
> > >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Grant Henke
> > >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> > >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > Neha
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Ashish
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
Hi Gwen,
I filed KAFKA-2425 as KAFKA-2364 is about improving the website
documentation. Aseem Bansal seemed interested in helping us with the move
so I pinged him in the issue.
Best,
Ismael
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding +1,
> 3
> > non-binding +1 and no -1.
> >
> > Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking for a
> > volunteer?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 on same repo.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
> >> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@confluent.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in
> >> sync.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more
> >> accurate
> >> > > they
> >> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new
> >> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
> >> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur
> without
> >> a
> >> > new
> >> > > > release?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of
> code
> >> /
> >> > doc
> >> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Guozhang
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <gwen@confluent.io
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples documentation
> >> > > changes
> >> > > > > from
> >> > > > > > website changes:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the
> >> > documentation
> >> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the
> >> > > > > documentation,
> >> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike current
> SVN
> >> > > where
> >> > > > we
> >> > > > > > have directories per version)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new
> release
> >> to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > website
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Gwen
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <
> ismael@juma.me.uk
> >> >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving the
> >> > > website
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > Git:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like
> to
> >> > see a
> >> > > > bit
> >> > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part of
> the
> >> > same
> >> > > > repo
> >> > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> >> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which means:
> >> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant code
> >> > changes
> >> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same time
> >> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> >> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> >> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller
> repo,
> >> > less
> >> > > > > > > verification needed)
> >> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
> >> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Best,
> >> > > > > > > Ismael
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
> >> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Hi
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to
> git
> >> > came
> >> > > > up.
> >> > > > > > > That
> >> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have
> >> contributed
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on
> github
> >> > could
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > useful.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should
> be a
> >> > > > separate
> >> > > > > > > repo.
> >> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Grant Henke
> >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> >> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Neha
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ashish
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>.
Ah, there is already a JIRA in the title. Never mind :)
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding +1, 3
> non-binding +1 and no -1.
>
> Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking for a
> volunteer?
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 on same repo.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <
>> edward.ribeiro@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
>> >
>> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@confluent.io>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in
>> sync.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more
>> accurate
>> > > they
>> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new
>> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
>> > > >
>> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
>> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur without
>> a
>> > new
>> > > > release?
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of code
>> /
>> > doc
>> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Guozhang
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples documentation
>> > > changes
>> > > > > from
>> > > > > > website changes:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the
>> > documentation
>> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the
>> > > > > documentation,
>> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike current SVN
>> > > where
>> > > > we
>> > > > > > have directories per version)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new release
>> to
>> > > the
>> > > > > > website
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Gwen
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving the
>> > > website
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > Git:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like to
>> > see a
>> > > > bit
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part of the
>> > same
>> > > > repo
>> > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
>> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which means:
>> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant code
>> > changes
>> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same time
>> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
>> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
>> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller repo,
>> > less
>> > > > > > > verification needed)
>> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
>> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Best,
>> > > > > > > Ismael
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
>> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Hi
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git
>> > came
>> > > > up.
>> > > > > > > That
>> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have
>> contributed
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github
>> > could
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > > useful.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a
>> > > > separate
>> > > > > > > repo.
>> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > -- Guozhang
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Grant Henke
>> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
>> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
>> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Neha
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ashish
>>
>
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>.
The vote opened 5 days ago. I believe we can conclude with 3 binding +1, 3
non-binding +1 and no -1.
Ismael, are you opening and JIRA and migrating? Or are we looking for a
volunteer?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1 on same repo.
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <edward.ribeiro@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in
> sync.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more
> accurate
> > > they
> > > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new
> > > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> > > >
> > > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
> > > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur without a
> > new
> > > > release?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of code /
> > doc
> > > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples documentation
> > > changes
> > > > > from
> > > > > > website changes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the
> > documentation
> > > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the
> > > > > documentation,
> > > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike current SVN
> > > where
> > > > we
> > > > > > have directories per version)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new release
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > website
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gwen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving the
> > > website
> > > > to
> > > > > > > Git:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like to
> > see a
> > > > bit
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part of the
> > same
> > > > repo
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which means:
> > > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant code
> > changes
> > > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same time
> > > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller repo,
> > less
> > > > > > > verification needed)
> > > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
> > > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
> > > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git
> > came
> > > > up.
> > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have
> contributed
> > > to
> > > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github
> > could
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > useful.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > repo.
> > > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Grant Henke
> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke |
> linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Neha
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Ashish
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ashish Singh <as...@cloudera.com>.
+1 on same repo.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Edward Ribeiro <ed...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1. As soon as possible, please. :)
>
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in sync.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more accurate
> > they
> > > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new
> > > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> > >
> > > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
> > > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur without a
> new
> > > release?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of code /
> doc
> > > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
> > > >
> > > > Guozhang
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples documentation
> > changes
> > > > from
> > > > > website changes:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the
> documentation
> > > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the
> > > > documentation,
> > > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike current SVN
> > where
> > > we
> > > > > have directories per version)
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new release to
> > the
> > > > > website
> > > > >
> > > > > Gwen
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving the
> > website
> > > to
> > > > > > Git:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > > > >
> > > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like to
> see a
> > > bit
> > > > > of
> > > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part of the
> same
> > > repo
> > > > > as
> > > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which means:
> > > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant code
> changes
> > > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same time
> > > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller repo,
> less
> > > > > > verification needed)
> > > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
> > > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
> > asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git
> came
> > > up.
> > > > > > That
> > > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have contributed
> > to
> > > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github
> could
> > > be
> > > > > > > useful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a
> > > separate
> > > > > > repo.
> > > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -- Guozhang
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Grant Henke
> > > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Neha
> >
>
--
Regards,
Ashish
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Edward Ribeiro <ed...@gmail.com>.
+1. As soon as possible, please. :)
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Neha Narkhede <ne...@confluent.io> wrote:
> +1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in sync.
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more accurate
> they
> > are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new
> > feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
> >
> > If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
> > fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur without a new
> > release?
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of code / doc
> > > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
> > >
> > > Guozhang
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
> > > >
> > > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples documentation
> changes
> > > from
> > > > website changes:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the documentation
> > > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the
> > > documentation,
> > > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike current SVN
> where
> > we
> > > > have directories per version)
> > > >
> > > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
> > > >
> > > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new release to
> the
> > > > website
> > > >
> > > > Gwen
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving the
> website
> > to
> > > > > Git:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > > >
> > > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like to see a
> > bit
> > > > of
> > > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part of the same
> > repo
> > > > as
> > > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which means:
> > > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant code changes
> > > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same time
> > > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> > > > >
> > > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller repo, less
> > > > > verification needed)
> > > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
> > > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> > > > >
> > > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Ismael
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <
> asmbansal2@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git came
> > up.
> > > > > That
> > > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have contributed
> to
> > > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github could
> > be
> > > > > > useful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a
> > separate
> > > > > repo.
> > > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can try that out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- Guozhang
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Grant Henke
> > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Neha
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Neha Narkhede <ne...@confluent.io>.
+1 on the same repo for code and website. It helps to keep both in sync.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more accurate they
> are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new
> feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
>
> If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
> fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur without a new
> release?
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of code / doc
> > change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
> > >
> > > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples documentation changes
> > from
> > > website changes:
> > >
> > > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the documentation
> > > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the
> > documentation,
> > > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike current SVN where
> we
> > > have directories per version)
> > >
> > > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
> > >
> > > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new release to the
> > > website
> > >
> > > Gwen
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving the website
> to
> > > > Git:
> > > >
> > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > > >
> > > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like to see a
> bit
> > > of
> > > > a discussion around whether the website should be part of the same
> repo
> > > as
> > > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> > > >
> > > > Pros for same repo:
> > > > * One commit can update the code and website, which means:
> > > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant code changes
> > > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same time
> > > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> > > >
> > > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller repo, less
> > > > verification needed)
> > > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
> > > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> > > >
> > > > Your thoughts, please.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <as...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git came
> up.
> > > > That
> > > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have contributed to
> > > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github could
> be
> > > > > useful.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a
> separate
> > > > repo.
> > > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can try that out.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Grant Henke
> Software Engineer | Cloudera
> grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke
>
--
Thanks,
Neha
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Grant Henke <gh...@cloudera.com>.
+1 for the same repo. The closer docs can be to code the more accurate they
are likely to be. The same way we encourage unit tests for a new
feature/patch. Updating the docs can be the same.
If we follow Sqoop's process for example, how would small
fixes/adjustments/additions to the live documentation occur without a new
release?
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of code / doc
> change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
> >
> > Sqoop has the following process, which decouples documentation changes
> from
> > website changes:
> >
> > 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the documentation
> > written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the
> documentation,
> > since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike current SVN where we
> > have directories per version)
> >
> > 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
> >
> > 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new release to the
> > website
> >
> > Gwen
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving the website to
> > > Git:
> > >
> > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> > >
> > > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like to see a bit
> > of
> > > a discussion around whether the website should be part of the same repo
> > as
> > > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> > >
> > > Pros for same repo:
> > > * One commit can update the code and website, which means:
> > > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant code changes
> > > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same time
> > > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> > >
> > > Pros for separate repo:
> > > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller repo, less
> > > verification needed)
> > > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
> > > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> > >
> > > Your thoughts, please.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <as...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git came up.
> > > That
> > > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have contributed to
> > > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github could be
> > > > useful.
> > > >
> > > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a separate
> > > repo.
> > > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > > >
> > > > I can try that out.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
--
Grant Henke
Software Engineer | Cloudera
grant@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
I am +1 on same repo too. I think keeping one git history of code / doc
change may actually be beneficial for this approach as well.
Guozhang
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io> wrote:
> I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
>
> Sqoop has the following process, which decouples documentation changes from
> website changes:
>
> 1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the documentation
> written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the documentation,
> since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike current SVN where we
> have directories per version)
>
> 2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
>
> 3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new release to the
> website
>
> Gwen
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving the website to
> > Git:
> >
> > http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
> >
> > People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like to see a bit
> of
> > a discussion around whether the website should be part of the same repo
> as
> > the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
> >
> > Pros for same repo:
> > * One commit can update the code and website, which means:
> > ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant code changes
> > ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same time
> > * More eyeballs on the website changes
> > * Automatically branched with the relevant code
> >
> > Pros for separate repo:
> > * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller repo, less
> > verification needed)
> > * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
> > * No risk of website change affecting the code
> >
> > Your thoughts, please.
> >
> > Best,
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <as...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git came up.
> > That
> > > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have contributed to
> > > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github could be
> > > useful.
> > >
> > > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a separate
> > repo.
> > > No need to mix docs and code.
> > >
> > > I can try that out.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> >
>
--
-- Guozhang
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io>.
I prefer same repo for one-commit / lower-barrier benefits.
Sqoop has the following process, which decouples documentation changes from
website changes:
1. Code github repo contains a doc directory, with the documentation
written and maintained in AsciiDoc. Only one version of the documentation,
since it is source controlled with the code. (unlike current SVN where we
have directories per version)
2. Build process compiles the AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF
3. When releasing, we post the documentation of the new release to the
website
Gwen
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving the website to
> Git:
>
> http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
>
> People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like to see a bit of
> a discussion around whether the website should be part of the same repo as
> the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
>
> Pros for same repo:
> * One commit can update the code and website, which means:
> ** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant code changes
> ** Easier to require that both are updated at the same time
> * More eyeballs on the website changes
> * Automatically branched with the relevant code
>
> Pros for separate repo:
> * Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller repo, less
> verification needed)
> * Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
> * No risk of website change affecting the code
>
> Your thoughts, please.
>
> Best,
> Ismael
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <as...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git came up.
> That
> > would make contributing to docs much easier. I have contributed to
> > groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github could be
> > useful.
> >
> > Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a separate
> repo.
> > No need to mix docs and code.
> >
> > I can try that out.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
Hi,
For reference, here is the previous discussion on moving the website to Git:
http://search-hadoop.com/m/uyzND11JliU1E8QU92
People were positive to the idea as Jay said. I would like to see a bit of
a discussion around whether the website should be part of the same repo as
the code or not. I'll get the ball rolling.
Pros for same repo:
* One commit can update the code and website, which means:
** Lower barrier for updating docs along with relevant code changes
** Easier to require that both are updated at the same time
* More eyeballs on the website changes
* Automatically branched with the relevant code
Pros for separate repo:
* Potentially simpler for website-only changes (smaller repo, less
verification needed)
* Website changes don't "clutter" the code Git history
* No risk of website change affecting the code
Your thoughts, please.
Best,
Ismael
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Aseem Bansal <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git came up. That
> would make contributing to docs much easier. I have contributed to
> groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github could be
> useful.
>
> Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a separate repo.
> No need to mix docs and code.
>
> I can try that out.
>
> Thoughts?
>
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Jay Kreps <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:
> The issue last time was that Apache has special infrastructure for web
> hosting built around svn called svnpubsub. This is what takes the content
> changes and pushes them live to the site. They didn't yet have a gitpubsub
> at the time. If they've fixed that then we should be unblocked to switch.
>
Yes, they have:
https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/git_based_websites_available
Ismael
Re: KAFKA-2364 migrate docs from SVN to git
Posted by Jay Kreps <ja...@confluent.io>.
The issue last time was that Apache has special infrastructure for web
hosting built around svn called svnpubsub. This is what takes the content
changes and pushes them live to the site. They didn't yet have a gitpubsub
at the time. If they've fixed that then we should be unblocked to switch.
-Jay
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Aseem Bansal <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> When discussing on KAFKA-2364 migrating docs from svn to git came up. That
> would make contributing to docs much easier. I have contributed to
> groovy/grails via github so I think having mirror on github could be
> useful.
>
> Also I think unless there is some good reason it should be a separate repo.
> No need to mix docs and code.
>
> I can try that out.
>
> Thoughts?
>