You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@mrunit.apache.org by Jim Donofrio <do...@gmail.com> on 2012/09/07 14:54:58 UTC

[DISCUSS] write documentation as part of release

Our documentation is currently poor but we should maybe keep separate 
documentation for different versions or highlight the differences 
between the versions. I dont see a need to make a formal process of 
releasing documentation with a release and tagging the documentation. 
The website is already under version control in SVN. By versioning the 
documentation it will prevent us from fixing typos or improving the 
documentation between releases.

On 09/07/2012 01:28 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
> The site folder currently can't be part of the GIT repository. The reason behind that is that it's directly used by Apache CMS system and that is heavily based on SVN without any GIT support (as far as I know).
>
> On the other hand, I'm in favour of of having documentation as a part of the repository and release. We're for example doing something similar in Apache Sqoop project, where the documentation is part of the repository and is kept up-to-date with the sources. During release procedure of new version we always take the snapshot and publish it to the web (through site SVN module). But as far as I know, we've never done something similar in MRunit, so this topic is out of scope of "Moving repository to git" :-) But please, feel free to send your suggestion in separate mail thread for brother discussion.
>
> Jarcec
>
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 03:45:58AM +0000, Wei, Jianbin wrote:
>> Why not make the site folder as part of the repository?  The documentation should be part of the release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jianbin
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 17:59, "Jim Donofrio" <do...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks good, make sure INFRA keeps the site folder in the svn writable, otherwise we cannot update the website.
>>>
>>> On 09/06/2012 01:00 PM, Brock Noland wrote:
>>>> Nice! Seems OK to me (git log and git branch -a), but I am no git
>>>> ninja so let's have one more person comment before we go ahead.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>> Infra team has rebuilt new GIT repository. I've verified that the missing commits are back. I would strongly prefer to have another set of eyes check the repository before allowing infra to continue.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can clone the repository using following command:
>>>>>
>>>>> git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git
>>>>>
>>>>> Jarcec
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:26:41AM +0200, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
>>>>>> This is my fault - INRA asked for PMC approval, so I've automatically routed this event to private@ mailing list. I'll send next around to dev@.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jarcec
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 04:01:38PM -0400, Jim Donofrio wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes good point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/03/2012 03:57 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why is this happening on private? Looks like a dev@ convo to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Jim Donofrio wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The trunk branch seems to be way out of date. The last commit should be MRUNIT-142 by Dave Beech at 8/15 6:23am while the git repo shows the last commit as being me on 5/22?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 09/03/2012 01:50 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Mrunit PMC,
>>>>>>>>>> it appears that we have progress on moving our repository from SVN to GIT. Infra has set our SVN repository to read only and imported data to git. You can get the repository by running following command:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We are asked to check the repository for correctness. I've checked it myself, however I would appreciate if another set of eyes would look around as well before giving Infra green to proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is stuff that I've checked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * Clone is working
>>>>>>>>>> * Tags seems to be correct
>>>>>>>>>> * Branches seems to be correct
>>>>>>>>>> * Commit history (git graph) seems to be also correct
>>>>>>>>>> * "trunk" is compilable
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jarcec
>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>> Senior Computer Scientist
>>>>>>>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>>>>>>>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>>>>>>>> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
>>>>>>>> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>>>>>>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] write documentation as part of release

Posted by Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com>.

Never mind, the website is still in SVN and only the website portion
of SVN is writable.

Brock

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> I am not sure we finished this conversation? It sounds like the
> definitive copy of the documentation is going to be in git. I will
> operate under that assumption while updating the release documents.
>
> Brock
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I personally believe that this is the right way to go, so I'm definitely +1 on such proposal.
>>
>> Jarcec
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 09:02:27PM +0000, Wei, Jianbin wrote:
>>> The key point here is to have documentation evolve along with source code.
>>>
>>> Given git is not going to be supported by the CMS, we may try the way Jarcec used in Sqoop: get documentation into git, evolve, and then push back to SVN for publish.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -- Jianbin
>>>
>>> On Sep 7, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Brock Noland wrote:
>>>
>>> So is the proposal here to basically, take a snapshot of the
>>> documentation when we branch for a release and include that in the
>>> release?
>>>
>>> Brock
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Wei, Jianbin <ji...@paypal.com>> wrote:
>>> The ultimate purpose is to have documentation that is _updated_ and _nice_.
>>>
>>> Having documentation as part of release is one possible solution.  For example, when adding a new feature, the documentation, including design (for other developers) and usage (for users), should be part of the checkin.  Right now, they are NOT although it is under SVN control.
>>>
>>> IMO, we can support one stable and one current releases.  So I don't see why we cannot fix typos or improving documentations between releases.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -- Jianbin
>>>
>>> On Sep 7, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Jim Donofrio wrote:
>>>
>>> Our documentation is currently poor but we should maybe keep separate documentation for different versions or highlight the differences between the versions. I dont see a need to make a formal process of releasing documentation with a release and tagging the documentation. The website is already under version control in SVN. By versioning the documentation it will prevent us from fixing typos or improving the documentation between releases.
>>>
>>> On 09/07/2012 01:28 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
>>> The site folder currently can't be part of the GIT repository. The reason behind that is that it's directly used by Apache CMS system and that is heavily based on SVN without any GIT support (as far as I know).
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I'm in favour of of having documentation as a part of the repository and release. We're for example doing something similar in Apache Sqoop project, where the documentation is part of the repository and is kept up-to-date with the sources. During release procedure of new version we always take the snapshot and publish it to the web (through site SVN module). But as far as I know, we've never done something similar in MRunit, so this topic is out of scope of "Moving repository to git" :-) But please, feel free to send your suggestion in separate mail thread for brother discussion.
>>>
>>> Jarcec
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 03:45:58AM +0000, Wei, Jianbin wrote:
>>> Why not make the site folder as part of the repository?  The documentation should be part of the release.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jianbin
>>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 17:59, "Jim Donofrio" <do...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Looks good, make sure INFRA keeps the site folder in the svn writable, otherwise we cannot update the website.
>>>
>>> On 09/06/2012 01:00 PM, Brock Noland wrote:
>>> Nice! Seems OK to me (git log and git branch -a), but I am no git
>>> ninja so let's have one more person comment before we go ahead.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>> Hi Guys,
>>> Infra team has rebuilt new GIT repository. I've verified that the missing commits are back. I would strongly prefer to have another set of eyes check the repository before allowing infra to continue.
>>>
>>> You can clone the repository using following command:
>>>
>>> git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git
>>>
>>> Jarcec
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:26:41AM +0200, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
>>> This is my fault - INRA asked for PMC approval, so I've automatically routed this event to private@ mailing list. I'll send next around to dev@.
>>>
>>> Jarcec
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 04:01:38PM -0400, Jim Donofrio wrote:
>>> Yes good point.
>>>
>>> On 09/03/2012 03:57 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> Why is this happening on private? Looks like a dev@ convo to me.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> On Sep 3, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Jim Donofrio wrote:
>>>
>>> The trunk branch seems to be way out of date. The last commit should be MRUNIT-142 by Dave Beech at 8/15 6:23am while the git repo shows the last commit as being me on 5/22?
>>>
>>> On 09/03/2012 01:50 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
>>> Hi Mrunit PMC,
>>> it appears that we have progress on moving our repository from SVN to GIT. Infra has set our SVN repository to read only and imported data to git. You can get the repository by running following command:
>>>
>>> git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git
>>>
>>> We are asked to check the repository for correctness. I've checked it myself, however I would appreciate if another set of eyes would look around as well before giving Infra green to proceed.
>>>
>>> Here is stuff that I've checked:
>>>
>>> * Clone is working
>>> * Tags seems to be correct
>>> * Branches seems to be correct
>>> * Commit history (git graph) seems to be also correct
>>> * "trunk" is compilable
>>>
>>> Jarcec
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>>> Senior Computer Scientist
>>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>>> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov<ma...@nasa.gov>
>>> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/



-- 
Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/

Re: [DISCUSS] write documentation as part of release

Posted by Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com>.

I am not sure we finished this conversation? It sounds like the
definitive copy of the documentation is going to be in git. I will
operate under that assumption while updating the release documents.

Brock

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> I personally believe that this is the right way to go, so I'm definitely +1 on such proposal.
>
> Jarcec
>
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 09:02:27PM +0000, Wei, Jianbin wrote:
>> The key point here is to have documentation evolve along with source code.
>>
>> Given git is not going to be supported by the CMS, we may try the way Jarcec used in Sqoop: get documentation into git, evolve, and then push back to SVN for publish.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -- Jianbin
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Brock Noland wrote:
>>
>> So is the proposal here to basically, take a snapshot of the
>> documentation when we branch for a release and include that in the
>> release?
>>
>> Brock
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Wei, Jianbin <ji...@paypal.com>> wrote:
>> The ultimate purpose is to have documentation that is _updated_ and _nice_.
>>
>> Having documentation as part of release is one possible solution.  For example, when adding a new feature, the documentation, including design (for other developers) and usage (for users), should be part of the checkin.  Right now, they are NOT although it is under SVN control.
>>
>> IMO, we can support one stable and one current releases.  So I don't see why we cannot fix typos or improving documentations between releases.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -- Jianbin
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Jim Donofrio wrote:
>>
>> Our documentation is currently poor but we should maybe keep separate documentation for different versions or highlight the differences between the versions. I dont see a need to make a formal process of releasing documentation with a release and tagging the documentation. The website is already under version control in SVN. By versioning the documentation it will prevent us from fixing typos or improving the documentation between releases.
>>
>> On 09/07/2012 01:28 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
>> The site folder currently can't be part of the GIT repository. The reason behind that is that it's directly used by Apache CMS system and that is heavily based on SVN without any GIT support (as far as I know).
>>
>> On the other hand, I'm in favour of of having documentation as a part of the repository and release. We're for example doing something similar in Apache Sqoop project, where the documentation is part of the repository and is kept up-to-date with the sources. During release procedure of new version we always take the snapshot and publish it to the web (through site SVN module). But as far as I know, we've never done something similar in MRunit, so this topic is out of scope of "Moving repository to git" :-) But please, feel free to send your suggestion in separate mail thread for brother discussion.
>>
>> Jarcec
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 03:45:58AM +0000, Wei, Jianbin wrote:
>> Why not make the site folder as part of the repository?  The documentation should be part of the release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jianbin
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 17:59, "Jim Donofrio" <do...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Looks good, make sure INFRA keeps the site folder in the svn writable, otherwise we cannot update the website.
>>
>> On 09/06/2012 01:00 PM, Brock Noland wrote:
>> Nice! Seems OK to me (git log and git branch -a), but I am no git
>> ninja so let's have one more person comment before we go ahead.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>> Infra team has rebuilt new GIT repository. I've verified that the missing commits are back. I would strongly prefer to have another set of eyes check the repository before allowing infra to continue.
>>
>> You can clone the repository using following command:
>>
>> git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git
>>
>> Jarcec
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:26:41AM +0200, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
>> This is my fault - INRA asked for PMC approval, so I've automatically routed this event to private@ mailing list. I'll send next around to dev@.
>>
>> Jarcec
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 04:01:38PM -0400, Jim Donofrio wrote:
>> Yes good point.
>>
>> On 09/03/2012 03:57 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> Why is this happening on private? Looks like a dev@ convo to me.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Jim Donofrio wrote:
>>
>> The trunk branch seems to be way out of date. The last commit should be MRUNIT-142 by Dave Beech at 8/15 6:23am while the git repo shows the last commit as being me on 5/22?
>>
>> On 09/03/2012 01:50 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
>> Hi Mrunit PMC,
>> it appears that we have progress on moving our repository from SVN to GIT. Infra has set our SVN repository to read only and imported data to git. You can get the repository by running following command:
>>
>> git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git
>>
>> We are asked to check the repository for correctness. I've checked it myself, however I would appreciate if another set of eyes would look around as well before giving Infra green to proceed.
>>
>> Here is stuff that I've checked:
>>
>> * Clone is working
>> * Tags seems to be correct
>> * Branches seems to be correct
>> * Commit history (git graph) seems to be also correct
>> * "trunk" is compilable
>>
>> Jarcec
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> Senior Computer Scientist
>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov<ma...@nasa.gov>
>> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/
>>



-- 
Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/

Re: [DISCUSS] write documentation as part of release

Posted by Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>.

I personally believe that this is the right way to go, so I'm definitely +1 on such proposal.

Jarcec

On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 09:02:27PM +0000, Wei, Jianbin wrote:
> The key point here is to have documentation evolve along with source code.
> 
> Given git is not going to be supported by the CMS, we may try the way Jarcec used in Sqoop: get documentation into git, evolve, and then push back to SVN for publish.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- Jianbin
> 
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Brock Noland wrote:
> 
> So is the proposal here to basically, take a snapshot of the
> documentation when we branch for a release and include that in the
> release?
> 
> Brock
> 
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Wei, Jianbin <ji...@paypal.com>> wrote:
> The ultimate purpose is to have documentation that is _updated_ and _nice_.
> 
> Having documentation as part of release is one possible solution.  For example, when adding a new feature, the documentation, including design (for other developers) and usage (for users), should be part of the checkin.  Right now, they are NOT although it is under SVN control.
> 
> IMO, we can support one stable and one current releases.  So I don't see why we cannot fix typos or improving documentations between releases.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- Jianbin
> 
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Jim Donofrio wrote:
> 
> Our documentation is currently poor but we should maybe keep separate documentation for different versions or highlight the differences between the versions. I dont see a need to make a formal process of releasing documentation with a release and tagging the documentation. The website is already under version control in SVN. By versioning the documentation it will prevent us from fixing typos or improving the documentation between releases.
> 
> On 09/07/2012 01:28 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
> The site folder currently can't be part of the GIT repository. The reason behind that is that it's directly used by Apache CMS system and that is heavily based on SVN without any GIT support (as far as I know).
> 
> On the other hand, I'm in favour of of having documentation as a part of the repository and release. We're for example doing something similar in Apache Sqoop project, where the documentation is part of the repository and is kept up-to-date with the sources. During release procedure of new version we always take the snapshot and publish it to the web (through site SVN module). But as far as I know, we've never done something similar in MRunit, so this topic is out of scope of "Moving repository to git" :-) But please, feel free to send your suggestion in separate mail thread for brother discussion.
> 
> Jarcec
> 
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 03:45:58AM +0000, Wei, Jianbin wrote:
> Why not make the site folder as part of the repository?  The documentation should be part of the release.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jianbin
> 
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 17:59, "Jim Donofrio" <do...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Looks good, make sure INFRA keeps the site folder in the svn writable, otherwise we cannot update the website.
> 
> On 09/06/2012 01:00 PM, Brock Noland wrote:
> Nice! Seems OK to me (git log and git branch -a), but I am no git
> ninja so let's have one more person comment before we go ahead.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> Infra team has rebuilt new GIT repository. I've verified that the missing commits are back. I would strongly prefer to have another set of eyes check the repository before allowing infra to continue.
> 
> You can clone the repository using following command:
> 
> git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git
> 
> Jarcec
> 
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:26:41AM +0200, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
> This is my fault - INRA asked for PMC approval, so I've automatically routed this event to private@ mailing list. I'll send next around to dev@.
> 
> Jarcec
> 
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 04:01:38PM -0400, Jim Donofrio wrote:
> Yes good point.
> 
> On 09/03/2012 03:57 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> 
> Why is this happening on private? Looks like a dev@ convo to me.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> On Sep 3, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Jim Donofrio wrote:
> 
> The trunk branch seems to be way out of date. The last commit should be MRUNIT-142 by Dave Beech at 8/15 6:23am while the git repo shows the last commit as being me on 5/22?
> 
> On 09/03/2012 01:50 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
> Hi Mrunit PMC,
> it appears that we have progress on moving our repository from SVN to GIT. Infra has set our SVN repository to read only and imported data to git. You can get the repository by running following command:
> 
> git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git
> 
> We are asked to check the repository for correctness. I've checked it myself, however I would appreciate if another set of eyes would look around as well before giving Infra green to proceed.
> 
> Here is stuff that I've checked:
> 
> * Clone is working
> * Tags seems to be correct
> * Branches seems to be correct
> * Commit history (git graph) seems to be also correct
> * "trunk" is compilable
> 
> Jarcec
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov<ma...@nasa.gov>
> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/
>

Re: [DISCUSS] write documentation as part of release

Posted by "Wei, Jianbin" <ji...@paypal.com>.

The key point here is to have documentation evolve along with source code.

Given git is not going to be supported by the CMS, we may try the way Jarcec used in Sqoop: get documentation into git, evolve, and then push back to SVN for publish.

Regards,

-- Jianbin

On Sep 7, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Brock Noland wrote:

So is the proposal here to basically, take a snapshot of the
documentation when we branch for a release and include that in the
release?

Brock

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Wei, Jianbin <ji...@paypal.com>> wrote:
The ultimate purpose is to have documentation that is _updated_ and _nice_.

Having documentation as part of release is one possible solution. For example, when adding a new feature, the documentation, including design (for other developers) and usage (for users), should be part of the checkin. Right now, they are NOT although it is under SVN control.

IMO, we can support one stable and one current releases. So I don't see why we cannot fix typos or improving documentations between releases.

Regards,

-- Jianbin

On Sep 7, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Jim Donofrio wrote:

Our documentation is currently poor but we should maybe keep separate documentation for different versions or highlight the differences between the versions. I dont see a need to make a formal process of releasing documentation with a release and tagging the documentation. The website is already under version control in SVN. By versioning the documentation it will prevent us from fixing typos or improving the documentation between releases.

On 09/07/2012 01:28 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
The site folder currently can't be part of the GIT repository. The reason behind that is that it's directly used by Apache CMS system and that is heavily based on SVN without any GIT support (as far as I know).

On the other hand, I'm in favour of of having documentation as a part of the repository and release. We're for example doing something similar in Apache Sqoop project, where the documentation is part of the repository and is kept up-to-date with the sources. During release procedure of new version we always take the snapshot and publish it to the web (through site SVN module). But as far as I know, we've never done something similar in MRunit, so this topic is out of scope of "Moving repository to git" :-) But please, feel free to send your suggestion in separate mail thread for brother discussion.

Jarcec

On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 03:45:58AM +0000, Wei, Jianbin wrote:
Why not make the site folder as part of the repository? The documentation should be part of the release.

Thanks,

Jianbin

On Sep 6, 2012, at 17:59, "Jim Donofrio" <do...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Looks good, make sure INFRA keeps the site folder in the svn writable, otherwise we cannot update the website.

On 09/06/2012 01:00 PM, Brock Noland wrote:
Nice! Seems OK to me (git log and git branch -a), but I am no git
ninja so let's have one more person comment before we go ahead.

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>> wrote:
Hi Guys,
Infra team has rebuilt new GIT repository. I've verified that the missing commits are back. I would strongly prefer to have another set of eyes check the repository before allowing infra to continue.

You can clone the repository using following command:

git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git

Jarcec

On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:26:41AM +0200, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
This is my fault - INRA asked for PMC approval, so I've automatically routed this event to private@ mailing list. I'll send next around to dev@.

Jarcec

On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 04:01:38PM -0400, Jim Donofrio wrote:
Yes good point.

On 09/03/2012 03:57 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Hi Guys,

Why is this happening on private? Looks like a dev@ convo to me.

Cheers,
Chris

On Sep 3, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Jim Donofrio wrote:

The trunk branch seems to be way out of date. The last commit should be MRUNIT-142 by Dave Beech at 8/15 6:23am while the git repo shows the last commit as being me on 5/22?

On 09/03/2012 01:50 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
Hi Mrunit PMC,
it appears that we have progress on moving our repository from SVN to GIT. Infra has set our SVN repository to read only and imported data to git. You can get the repository by running following command:

git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git

We are asked to check the repository for correctness. I've checked it myself, however I would appreciate if another set of eyes would look around as well before giving Infra green to proceed.

Here is stuff that I've checked:

* Clone is working
* Tags seems to be correct
* Branches seems to be correct
* Commit history (git graph) seems to be also correct
* "trunk" is compilable

Jarcec
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov<ma...@nasa.gov>
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

--
Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/

Re: [DISCUSS] write documentation as part of release

Posted by Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com>.

So is the proposal here to basically, take a snapshot of the
documentation when we branch for a release and include that in the
release?

Brock

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Wei, Jianbin <ji...@paypal.com> wrote:
> The ultimate purpose is to have documentation that is _updated_ and _nice_.
>
> Having documentation as part of release is one possible solution.  For example, when adding a new feature, the documentation, including design (for other developers) and usage (for users), should be part of the checkin.  Right now, they are NOT although it is under SVN control.
>
> IMO, we can support one stable and one current releases.  So I don't see why we cannot fix typos or improving documentations between releases.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- Jianbin
>
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Jim Donofrio wrote:
>
> Our documentation is currently poor but we should maybe keep separate documentation for different versions or highlight the differences between the versions. I dont see a need to make a formal process of releasing documentation with a release and tagging the documentation. The website is already under version control in SVN. By versioning the documentation it will prevent us from fixing typos or improving the documentation between releases.
>
> On 09/07/2012 01:28 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
> The site folder currently can't be part of the GIT repository. The reason behind that is that it's directly used by Apache CMS system and that is heavily based on SVN without any GIT support (as far as I know).
>
> On the other hand, I'm in favour of of having documentation as a part of the repository and release. We're for example doing something similar in Apache Sqoop project, where the documentation is part of the repository and is kept up-to-date with the sources. During release procedure of new version we always take the snapshot and publish it to the web (through site SVN module). But as far as I know, we've never done something similar in MRunit, so this topic is out of scope of "Moving repository to git" :-) But please, feel free to send your suggestion in separate mail thread for brother discussion.
>
> Jarcec
>
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 03:45:58AM +0000, Wei, Jianbin wrote:
> Why not make the site folder as part of the repository?  The documentation should be part of the release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jianbin
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 17:59, "Jim Donofrio" <do...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Looks good, make sure INFRA keeps the site folder in the svn writable, otherwise we cannot update the website.
>
> On 09/06/2012 01:00 PM, Brock Noland wrote:
> Nice! Seems OK to me (git log and git branch -a), but I am no git
> ninja so let's have one more person comment before we go ahead.
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> Infra team has rebuilt new GIT repository. I've verified that the missing commits are back. I would strongly prefer to have another set of eyes check the repository before allowing infra to continue.
>
> You can clone the repository using following command:
>
> git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git
>
> Jarcec
>
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:26:41AM +0200, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
> This is my fault - INRA asked for PMC approval, so I've automatically routed this event to private@ mailing list. I'll send next around to dev@.
>
> Jarcec
>
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 04:01:38PM -0400, Jim Donofrio wrote:
> Yes good point.
>
> On 09/03/2012 03:57 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Why is this happening on private? Looks like a dev@ convo to me.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> On Sep 3, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Jim Donofrio wrote:
>
> The trunk branch seems to be way out of date. The last commit should be MRUNIT-142 by Dave Beech at 8/15 6:23am while the git repo shows the last commit as being me on 5/22?
>
> On 09/03/2012 01:50 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote:
> Hi Mrunit PMC,
> it appears that we have progress on moving our repository from SVN to GIT. Infra has set our SVN repository to read only and imported data to git. You can get the repository by running following command:
>
> git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git
>
> We are asked to check the repository for correctness. I've checked it myself, however I would appreciate if another set of eyes would look around as well before giving Infra green to proceed.
>
> Here is stuff that I've checked:
>
> * Clone is working
> * Tags seems to be correct
> * Branches seems to be correct
> * Commit history (git graph) seems to be also correct
> * "trunk" is compilable
>
> Jarcec
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov<ma...@nasa.gov>
> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/

Re: [DISCUSS] write documentation as part of release

Posted by "Wei, Jianbin" <ji...@paypal.com>.

The ultimate purpose is to have documentation that is _updated_ and _nice_.

IMO, we can support one stable and one current releases. So I don't see why we cannot fix typos or improving documentations between releases.

Regards,

-- Jianbin

On Sep 7, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Jim Donofrio wrote:

Jarcec

On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 03:45:58AM +0000, Wei, Jianbin wrote:
Why not make the site folder as part of the repository? The documentation should be part of the release.

Thanks,

Jianbin

On Sep 6, 2012, at 17:59, "Jim Donofrio" <do...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Looks good, make sure INFRA keeps the site folder in the svn writable, otherwise we cannot update the website.

On 09/06/2012 01:00 PM, Brock Noland wrote:
Nice! Seems OK to me (git log and git branch -a), but I am no git
ninja so let's have one more person comment before we go ahead.

You can clone the repository using following command:

git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git

Jarcec

On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 04:01:38PM -0400, Jim Donofrio wrote:
Yes good point.

On 09/03/2012 03:57 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Hi Guys,

Why is this happening on private? Looks like a dev@ convo to me.

Cheers,
Chris

On Sep 3, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Jim Donofrio wrote:

The trunk branch seems to be way out of date. The last commit should be MRUNIT-142 by Dave Beech at 8/15 6:23am while the git repo shows the last commit as being me on 5/22?

git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/mrunit.git

We are asked to check the repository for correctness. I've checked it myself, however I would appreciate if another set of eyes would look around as well before giving Infra green to proceed.

Here is stuff that I've checked:

* Clone is working
* Tags seems to be correct
* Branches seems to be correct
* Commit history (git graph) seems to be also correct
* "trunk" is compilable