Re: Documenting Ignite
Locked
 
|
Hi folks,
Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets tracking less error-prone. The current approach implies that a contributor keeps in mind what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good memory, a doc JIRA counterpart will be created once the contribution is accepted. But the practice shows that the memory lets us down :) Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is that Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete the docs in advance. -- Denis On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov <[hidden email]> wrote: > Dmitry, > > The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was to rectify the > fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on an ad-hoc basis, > and often issues are created when the lack of documentation becomes an > issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. > > I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as efficient as the > current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will have to be shared > between multiple contributors and performed outside of JIRA, which has > its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for improvement without > creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. > > If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a field, then we > should contact Apache Infra and find out. > > > Best regards, > > Artem Budnikov > > > On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > > Hi Artem, > > > > I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has potential for > > improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive and simple to > > understand. So if experienced tech writer will join community it could > > benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're very welcome to the > > community! > > > > About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need assistance of > Apache > > Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other Apache project. And > > I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed process is even > > possible without plugins. Could we consider some manual processing of > > completed issues in relation to doc requrement? > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov <[hidden email] > >: > > > >> Hi Igniters, > >> > >> Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to Ignite's > >> documentation, and I believe documentation is an important part of every > >> product, especially such a complex product as Apache Ignite. > >> > >> I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to increase our chances of > >> making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The basic idea is to > >> have a Jira issue with the Component field set to "Documentation" for > >> every feature that needs to be documented. This will ensure that there > >> are documentation issues that cover the entire product functionality. > >> Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an article on the > subject. > >> > >> This is how I envision it to work technically. A new field (checkbox) is > >> added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox indicates that the > >> feature requested in this issue needs to be documented. The checkbox is > >> selected by default. If the feature does not require documentation, then > >> the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require documentation, the > >> author creates a related Jira issue selecting "Documentation" in the > >> Component field, providing details on what exactly should be documented. > >> > >> The field is called "Requires documentation" or similarly. It could be > >> also useful to create a new issue type for documentation issues > >> exclusively. > >> > >> Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out > >> > >> 1. issues that do not require documentation, > >> 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, and > >> 3. issues that require documentation but have no related issues (which > >> means that the author forgot to create a documentation issue for > it). > >> > >> > >> Please share your thoughts about this. > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Artem Budnikov > >> > >> > > |
|
Yes, I agree. My concern is related only to process implementation aspect,
I wonder if it is technically possible. Generally I like idea of automatic control. ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 23:21, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>: > Hi folks, > > Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets tracking less > error-prone. The current approach implies that a contributor keeps in mind > what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good memory, a doc JIRA > counterpart will be created once the contribution is accepted. But the > practice shows that the memory lets us down :) > > Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is that > Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a > release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete the > docs in advance. > > -- > Denis > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> Dmitry, >> >> The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was to rectify the >> fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on an ad-hoc basis, >> and often issues are created when the lack of documentation becomes an >> issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. >> >> I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as efficient as the >> current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will have to be shared >> between multiple contributors and performed outside of JIRA, which has >> its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for improvement without >> creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. >> >> If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a field, then we >> should contact Apache Infra and find out. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Artem Budnikov >> >> >> On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >> > Hi Artem, >> > >> > I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has potential for >> > improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive and simple to >> > understand. So if experienced tech writer will join community it could >> > benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're very welcome to the >> > community! >> > >> > About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need assistance of >> Apache >> > Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other Apache project. >> And >> > I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed process is even >> > possible without plugins. Could we consider some manual processing of >> > completed issues in relation to doc requrement? >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > >> > ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov < >> [hidden email]>: >> > >> >> Hi Igniters, >> >> >> >> Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to Ignite's >> >> documentation, and I believe documentation is an important part of >> every >> >> product, especially such a complex product as Apache Ignite. >> >> >> >> I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to increase our chances of >> >> making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The basic idea is to >> >> have a Jira issue with the Component field set to "Documentation" for >> >> every feature that needs to be documented. This will ensure that there >> >> are documentation issues that cover the entire product functionality. >> >> Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an article on the >> subject. >> >> >> >> This is how I envision it to work technically. A new field (checkbox) >> is >> >> added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox indicates that >> the >> >> feature requested in this issue needs to be documented. The checkbox is >> >> selected by default. If the feature does not require documentation, >> then >> >> the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require documentation, the >> >> author creates a related Jira issue selecting "Documentation" in the >> >> Component field, providing details on what exactly should be >> documented. >> >> >> >> The field is called "Requires documentation" or similarly. It could be >> >> also useful to create a new issue type for documentation issues >> >> exclusively. >> >> >> >> Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out >> >> >> >> 1. issues that do not require documentation, >> >> 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, and >> >> 3. issues that require documentation but have no related issues >> (which >> >> means that the author forgot to create a documentation issue for >> it). >> >> >> >> >> >> Please share your thoughts about this. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Artem Budnikov >> >> >> >> >> >> |
|
|
I totally agree with Denis's point -
"Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is that Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete the docs in advance." On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: > Yes, I agree. My concern is related only to process implementation aspect, > I wonder if it is technically possible. > > Generally I like idea of automatic control. > > ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 23:21, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>: > > > Hi folks, > > > > Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets tracking less > > error-prone. The current approach implies that a contributor keeps in > mind > > what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good memory, a doc JIRA > > counterpart will be created once the contribution is accepted. But the > > practice shows that the memory lets us down :) > > > > Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is > that > > Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a > > release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete > the > > docs in advance. > > > > -- > > Denis > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov < > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> Dmitry, > >> > >> The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was to rectify the > >> fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on an ad-hoc basis, > >> and often issues are created when the lack of documentation becomes an > >> issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. > >> > >> I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as efficient as the > >> current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will have to be shared > >> between multiple contributors and performed outside of JIRA, which has > >> its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for improvement without > >> creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. > >> > >> If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a field, then we > >> should contact Apache Infra and find out. > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Artem Budnikov > >> > >> > >> On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > >> > Hi Artem, > >> > > >> > I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has potential for > >> > improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive and simple to > >> > understand. So if experienced tech writer will join community it could > >> > benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're very welcome to the > >> > community! > >> > > >> > About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need assistance of > >> Apache > >> > Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other Apache project. > >> And > >> > I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed process is even > >> > possible without plugins. Could we consider some manual processing of > >> > completed issues in relation to doc requrement? > >> > > >> > Sincerely, > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> > > >> > ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov < > >> [hidden email]>: > >> > > >> >> Hi Igniters, > >> >> > >> >> Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to Ignite's > >> >> documentation, and I believe documentation is an important part of > >> every > >> >> product, especially such a complex product as Apache Ignite. > >> >> > >> >> I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to increase our chances > of > >> >> making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The basic idea is to > >> >> have a Jira issue with the Component field set to "Documentation" for > >> >> every feature that needs to be documented. This will ensure that > there > >> >> are documentation issues that cover the entire product functionality. > >> >> Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an article on the > >> subject. > >> >> > >> >> This is how I envision it to work technically. A new field (checkbox) > >> is > >> >> added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox indicates that > >> the > >> >> feature requested in this issue needs to be documented. The checkbox > is > >> >> selected by default. If the feature does not require documentation, > >> then > >> >> the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require documentation, > the > >> >> author creates a related Jira issue selecting "Documentation" in the > >> >> Component field, providing details on what exactly should be > >> documented. > >> >> > >> >> The field is called "Requires documentation" or similarly. It could > be > >> >> also useful to create a new issue type for documentation issues > >> >> exclusively. > >> >> > >> >> Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out > >> >> > >> >> 1. issues that do not require documentation, > >> >> 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, and > >> >> 3. issues that require documentation but have no related issues > >> (which > >> >> means that the author forgot to create a documentation issue for > >> it). > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Please share your thoughts about this. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Best regards, > >> >> > >> >> Artem Budnikov > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > |
|
|
Ok, if all our doc writers are in the agreement then let's give a couple of
days to our fellow Igniters to share alternate opinions. Artem, if you don't hear back by Monday then feel free to create an INFRA ticket. -- Denis On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:43 AM Prachi Garg <[hidden email]> wrote: > I totally agree with Denis's point - > > "Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is that > Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a > release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete the > docs in advance." > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Yes, I agree. My concern is related only to process implementation aspect, >> I wonder if it is technically possible. >> >> Generally I like idea of automatic control. >> >> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 23:21, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>: >> >> > Hi folks, >> > >> > Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets tracking less >> > error-prone. The current approach implies that a contributor keeps in >> mind >> > what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good memory, a doc JIRA >> > counterpart will be created once the contribution is accepted. But the >> > practice shows that the memory lets us down :) >> > >> > Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is >> that >> > Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a >> > release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete >> the >> > docs in advance. >> > >> > -- >> > Denis >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov < >> > [hidden email]> wrote: >> > >> >> Dmitry, >> >> >> >> The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was to rectify the >> >> fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on an ad-hoc basis, >> >> and often issues are created when the lack of documentation becomes an >> >> issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. >> >> >> >> I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as efficient as the >> >> current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will have to be shared >> >> between multiple contributors and performed outside of JIRA, which has >> >> its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for improvement without >> >> creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. >> >> >> >> If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a field, then we >> >> should contact Apache Infra and find out. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Artem Budnikov >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >> >> > Hi Artem, >> >> > >> >> > I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has potential for >> >> > improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive and simple to >> >> > understand. So if experienced tech writer will join community it >> could >> >> > benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're very welcome to >> the >> >> > community! >> >> > >> >> > About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need assistance of >> >> Apache >> >> > Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other Apache project. >> >> And >> >> > I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed process is >> even >> >> > possible without plugins. Could we consider some manual processing of >> >> > completed issues in relation to doc requrement? >> >> > >> >> > Sincerely, >> >> > Dmitriy Pavlov >> >> > >> >> > ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov < >> >> [hidden email]>: >> >> > >> >> >> Hi Igniters, >> >> >> >> >> >> Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to Ignite's >> >> >> documentation, and I believe documentation is an important part of >> >> every >> >> >> product, especially such a complex product as Apache Ignite. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to increase our chances >> of >> >> >> making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The basic idea is to >> >> >> have a Jira issue with the Component field set to "Documentation" >> for >> >> >> every feature that needs to be documented. This will ensure that >> there >> >> >> are documentation issues that cover the entire product >> functionality. >> >> >> Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an article on the >> >> subject. >> >> >> >> >> >> This is how I envision it to work technically. A new field >> (checkbox) >> >> is >> >> >> added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox indicates that >> >> the >> >> >> feature requested in this issue needs to be documented. The >> checkbox is >> >> >> selected by default. If the feature does not require documentation, >> >> then >> >> >> the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require documentation, >> the >> >> >> author creates a related Jira issue selecting "Documentation" in the >> >> >> Component field, providing details on what exactly should be >> >> documented. >> >> >> >> >> >> The field is called "Requires documentation" or similarly. It could >> be >> >> >> also useful to create a new issue type for documentation issues >> >> >> exclusively. >> >> >> >> >> >> Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. issues that do not require documentation, >> >> >> 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, and >> >> >> 3. issues that require documentation but have no related issues >> >> (which >> >> >> means that the author forgot to create a documentation issue >> for >> >> it). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Please share your thoughts about this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> Artem Budnikov >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > |
|
|
I appologize, initially I misundersood proposal. I've concluded that new
doc issue will be created automatically by closing original ticket, - this can be done by plugin only. If we just introduce flag or combobox for indicate doc is required, there is no technical issues, it is defenetely possible. So +1 from my side without concerns. чт, 19 июл. 2018 г. в 22:02, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>: > Ok, if all our doc writers are in the agreement then let's give a couple of > days to our fellow Igniters to share alternate opinions. > > Artem, if you don't hear back by Monday then feel free to create an INFRA > ticket. > > -- > Denis > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:43 AM Prachi Garg <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > I totally agree with Denis's point - > > > > "Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is > that > > Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a > > release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete > the > > docs in advance." > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > >> Yes, I agree. My concern is related only to process implementation > aspect, > >> I wonder if it is technically possible. > >> > >> Generally I like idea of automatic control. > >> > >> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 23:21, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>: > >> > >> > Hi folks, > >> > > >> > Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets tracking less > >> > error-prone. The current approach implies that a contributor keeps in > >> mind > >> > what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good memory, a doc JIRA > >> > counterpart will be created once the contribution is accepted. But the > >> > practice shows that the memory lets us down :) > >> > > >> > Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is > >> that > >> > Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a > >> > release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete > >> the > >> > docs in advance. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Denis > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov < > >> > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Dmitry, > >> >> > >> >> The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was to rectify > the > >> >> fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on an ad-hoc > basis, > >> >> and often issues are created when the lack of documentation becomes > an > >> >> issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. > >> >> > >> >> I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as efficient as the > >> >> current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will have to be > shared > >> >> between multiple contributors and performed outside of JIRA, which > has > >> >> its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for improvement > without > >> >> creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. > >> >> > >> >> If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a field, then we > >> >> should contact Apache Infra and find out. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Best regards, > >> >> > >> >> Artem Budnikov > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > >> >> > Hi Artem, > >> >> > > >> >> > I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has potential for > >> >> > improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive and simple to > >> >> > understand. So if experienced tech writer will join community it > >> could > >> >> > benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're very welcome to > >> the > >> >> > community! > >> >> > > >> >> > About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need assistance > of > >> >> Apache > >> >> > Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other Apache > project. > >> >> And > >> >> > I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed process is > >> even > >> >> > possible without plugins. Could we consider some manual processing > of > >> >> > completed issues in relation to doc requrement? > >> >> > > >> >> > Sincerely, > >> >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> >> > > >> >> > ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov < > >> >> [hidden email]>: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Hi Igniters, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to Ignite's > >> >> >> documentation, and I believe documentation is an important part of > >> >> every > >> >> >> product, especially such a complex product as Apache Ignite. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to increase our > chances > >> of > >> >> >> making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The basic idea is > to > >> >> >> have a Jira issue with the Component field set to "Documentation" > >> for > >> >> >> every feature that needs to be documented. This will ensure that > >> there > >> >> >> are documentation issues that cover the entire product > >> functionality. > >> >> >> Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an article on the > >> >> subject. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> This is how I envision it to work technically. A new field > >> (checkbox) > >> >> is > >> >> >> added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox indicates > that > >> >> the > >> >> >> feature requested in this issue needs to be documented. The > >> checkbox is > >> >> >> selected by default. If the feature does not require > documentation, > >> >> then > >> >> >> the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require > documentation, > >> the > >> >> >> author creates a related Jira issue selecting "Documentation" in > the > >> >> >> Component field, providing details on what exactly should be > >> >> documented. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The field is called "Requires documentation" or similarly. It > could > >> be > >> >> >> also useful to create a new issue type for documentation issues > >> >> >> exclusively. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 1. issues that do not require documentation, > >> >> >> 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, and > >> >> >> 3. issues that require documentation but have no related issues > >> >> (which > >> >> >> means that the author forgot to create a documentation issue > >> for > >> >> it). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Please share your thoughts about this. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Best regards, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Artem Budnikov > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > > > > |
|
|
Hi everyone,
I created an issue in the Apache INFRA project: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16803 Cheers, Artem On 19.07.2018 22:58, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > I appologize, initially I misundersood proposal. I've concluded that new > doc issue will be created automatically by closing original ticket, - this > can be done by plugin only. > > If we just introduce flag or combobox for indicate doc is required, there > is no technical issues, it is defenetely possible. So +1 from my side > without concerns. > > чт, 19 июл. 2018 г. в 22:02, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>: > >> Ok, if all our doc writers are in the agreement then let's give a couple of >> days to our fellow Igniters to share alternate opinions. >> >> Artem, if you don't hear back by Monday then feel free to create an INFRA >> ticket. >> >> -- >> Denis >> >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:43 AM Prachi Garg <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> I totally agree with Denis's point - >>> >>> "Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is >> that >>> Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a >>> release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete >> the >>> docs in advance." >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, I agree. My concern is related only to process implementation >> aspect, >>>> I wonder if it is technically possible. >>>> >>>> Generally I like idea of automatic control. >>>> >>>> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 23:21, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>: >>>> >>>>> Hi folks, >>>>> >>>>> Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets tracking less >>>>> error-prone. The current approach implies that a contributor keeps in >>>> mind >>>>> what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good memory, a doc JIRA >>>>> counterpart will be created once the contribution is accepted. But the >>>>> practice shows that the memory lets us down :) >>>>> >>>>> Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is >>>> that >>>>> Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a >>>>> release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete >>>> the >>>>> docs in advance. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Denis >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov < >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dmitry, >>>>>> >>>>>> The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was to rectify >> the >>>>>> fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on an ad-hoc >> basis, >>>>>> and often issues are created when the lack of documentation becomes >> an >>>>>> issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as efficient as the >>>>>> current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will have to be >> shared >>>>>> between multiple contributors and performed outside of JIRA, which >> has >>>>>> its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for improvement >> without >>>>>> creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a field, then we >>>>>> should contact Apache Infra and find out. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Artem Budnikov >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Artem, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has potential for >>>>>>> improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive and simple to >>>>>>> understand. So if experienced tech writer will join community it >>>> could >>>>>>> benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're very welcome to >>>> the >>>>>>> community! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need assistance >> of >>>>>> Apache >>>>>>> Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other Apache >> project. >>>>>> And >>>>>>> I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed process is >>>> even >>>>>>> possible without plugins. Could we consider some manual processing >> of >>>>>>> completed issues in relation to doc requrement? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov < >>>>>> [hidden email]>: >>>>>>>> Hi Igniters, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to Ignite's >>>>>>>> documentation, and I believe documentation is an important part of >>>>>> every >>>>>>>> product, especially such a complex product as Apache Ignite. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to increase our >> chances >>>> of >>>>>>>> making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The basic idea is >> to >>>>>>>> have a Jira issue with the Component field set to "Documentation" >>>> for >>>>>>>> every feature that needs to be documented. This will ensure that >>>> there >>>>>>>> are documentation issues that cover the entire product >>>> functionality. >>>>>>>> Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an article on the >>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>> This is how I envision it to work technically. A new field >>>> (checkbox) >>>>>> is >>>>>>>> added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox indicates >> that >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> feature requested in this issue needs to be documented. The >>>> checkbox is >>>>>>>> selected by default. If the feature does not require >> documentation, >>>>>> then >>>>>>>> the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require >> documentation, >>>> the >>>>>>>> author creates a related Jira issue selecting "Documentation" in >> the >>>>>>>> Component field, providing details on what exactly should be >>>>>> documented. >>>>>>>> The field is called "Requires documentation" or similarly. It >> could >>>> be >>>>>>>> also useful to create a new issue type for documentation issues >>>>>>>> exclusively. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. issues that do not require documentation, >>>>>>>> 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, and >>>>>>>> 3. issues that require documentation but have no related issues >>>>>> (which >>>>>>>> means that the author forgot to create a documentation issue >>>> for >>>>>> it). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please share your thoughts about this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Artem Budnikov >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> |
|
|
Hi everyone,
Despite what I've been told about INFRA, it responded exceptionally quickly and added the field :-) I think the page describing the process of creating IGNITE issues <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-TicketCreation> needs to be updated to reflect the changes related to documentation process. Could someone do this? Cheers, Artem On 23.07.2018 18:00, Artem Budnikov wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I created an issue in the Apache INFRA project: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16803 > > Cheers, > > Artem > > > On 19.07.2018 22:58, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >> I appologize, initially I misundersood proposal. I've concluded that new >> doc issue will be created automatically by closing original ticket, - >> this >> can be done by plugin only. >> >> If we just introduce flag or combobox for indicate doc is required, >> there >> is no technical issues, it is defenetely possible. So +1 from my side >> without concerns. >> >> чт, 19 июл. 2018 г. в 22:02, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>: >> >>> Ok, if all our doc writers are in the agreement then let's give a >>> couple of >>> days to our fellow Igniters to share alternate opinions. >>> >>> Artem, if you don't hear back by Monday then feel free to create an >>> INFRA >>> ticket. >>> >>> -- >>> Denis >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:43 AM Prachi Garg <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I totally agree with Denis's point - >>>> >>>> "Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is >>> that >>>> Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a >>>> release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete >>> the >>>> docs in advance." >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, I agree. My concern is related only to process implementation >>> aspect, >>>>> I wonder if it is technically possible. >>>>> >>>>> Generally I like idea of automatic control. >>>>> >>>>> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 23:21, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets tracking >>>>>> less >>>>>> error-prone. The current approach implies that a contributor >>>>>> keeps in >>>>> mind >>>>>> what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good memory, a doc >>>>>> JIRA >>>>>> counterpart will be created once the contribution is accepted. >>>>>> But the >>>>>> practice shows that the memory lets us down :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by >>>>>> default, is >>>>> that >>>>>> Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a >>>>>> release, figure out details from source code contributors and >>>>>> complete >>>>> the >>>>>> docs in advance. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Denis >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov < >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dmitry, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was to rectify >>> the >>>>>>> fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on an ad-hoc >>> basis, >>>>>>> and often issues are created when the lack of documentation becomes >>> an >>>>>>> issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as efficient >>>>>>> as the >>>>>>> current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will have to be >>> shared >>>>>>> between multiple contributors and performed outside of JIRA, which >>> has >>>>>>> its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for improvement >>> without >>>>>>> creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a field, then we >>>>>>> should contact Apache Infra and find out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Artem Budnikov >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Artem, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has potential for >>>>>>>> improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive and simple to >>>>>>>> understand. So if experienced tech writer will join community it >>>>> could >>>>>>>> benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're very welcome to >>>>> the >>>>>>>> community! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need assistance >>> of >>>>>>> Apache >>>>>>>> Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other Apache >>> project. >>>>>>> And >>>>>>>> I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed process is >>>>> even >>>>>>>> possible without plugins. Could we consider some manual processing >>> of >>>>>>>> completed issues in relation to doc requrement? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov < >>>>>>> [hidden email]>: >>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to Ignite's >>>>>>>>> documentation, and I believe documentation is an important >>>>>>>>> part of >>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>> product, especially such a complex product as Apache Ignite. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to increase our >>> chances >>>>> of >>>>>>>>> making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The basic idea is >>> to >>>>>>>>> have a Jira issue with the Component field set to "Documentation" >>>>> for >>>>>>>>> every feature that needs to be documented. This will ensure that >>>>> there >>>>>>>>> are documentation issues that cover the entire product >>>>> functionality. >>>>>>>>> Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an article on >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>> This is how I envision it to work technically. A new field >>>>> (checkbox) >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox indicates >>> that >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> feature requested in this issue needs to be documented. The >>>>> checkbox is >>>>>>>>> selected by default. If the feature does not require >>> documentation, >>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>> the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require >>> documentation, >>>>> the >>>>>>>>> author creates a related Jira issue selecting "Documentation" in >>> the >>>>>>>>> Component field, providing details on what exactly should be >>>>>>> documented. >>>>>>>>> The field is called "Requires documentation" or similarly. It >>> could >>>>> be >>>>>>>>> also useful to create a new issue type for documentation issues >>>>>>>>> exclusively. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. issues that do not require documentation, >>>>>>>>> 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, and >>>>>>>>> 3. issues that require documentation but have no related >>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>> (which >>>>>>>>> means that the author forgot to create a documentation >>>>>>>>> issue >>>>> for >>>>>>> it). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please share your thoughts about this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Artem Budnikov >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> > |
|
|
Hi Artem,
This is page in Ignite space, so you could do updates. Of course, if you have access to Ignite space in wiki. If not, please sign up and share your wiki login (id). Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 10:25, Artem Budnikov <[hidden email]>: > Hi everyone, > > Despite what I've been told about INFRA, it responded exceptionally > quickly and added the field :-) > > I think the page describing the process of creating IGNITE issues > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-TicketCreation> > needs to be updated to reflect the changes related to documentation > process. Could someone do this? > > Cheers, > > Artem > On 23.07.2018 18:00, Artem Budnikov wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I created an issue in the Apache INFRA project: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16803 > > Cheers, > > Artem > > > On 19.07.2018 22:58, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > > I appologize, initially I misundersood proposal. I've concluded that new > doc issue will be created automatically by closing original ticket, - this > can be done by plugin only. > > If we just introduce flag or combobox for indicate doc is required, there > is no technical issues, it is defenetely possible. So +1 from my side > without concerns. > > чт, 19 июл. 2018 г. в 22:02, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> > <[hidden email]>: > > Ok, if all our doc writers are in the agreement then let's give a couple > of > days to our fellow Igniters to share alternate opinions. > > Artem, if you don't hear back by Monday then feel free to create an INFRA > ticket. > > -- > Denis > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:43 AM Prachi Garg <[hidden email]> > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I totally agree with Denis's point - > > "Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is > > that > > Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a > release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete > > the > > docs in advance." > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]> > <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > Yes, I agree. My concern is related only to process implementation > > aspect, > > I wonder if it is technically possible. > > Generally I like idea of automatic control. > > ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 23:21, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> > <[hidden email]>: > > Hi folks, > > Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets tracking less > error-prone. The current approach implies that a contributor keeps in > > mind > > what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good memory, a doc JIRA > counterpart will be created once the contribution is accepted. But the > practice shows that the memory lets us down :) > > Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is > > that > > Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a > release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete > > the > > docs in advance. > > -- > Denis > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov < > [hidden email]> wrote: > > Dmitry, > > The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was to rectify > > the > > fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on an ad-hoc > > basis, > > and often issues are created when the lack of documentation becomes > > an > > issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. > > I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as efficient as the > current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will have to be > > shared > > between multiple contributors and performed outside of JIRA, which > > has > > its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for improvement > > without > > creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. > > If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a field, then we > should contact Apache Infra and find out. > > > Best regards, > > Artem Budnikov > > > On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > > Hi Artem, > > I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has potential for > improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive and simple to > understand. So if experienced tech writer will join community it > > could > > benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're very welcome to > > the > > community! > > About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need assistance > > of > > Apache > > Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other Apache > > project. > > And > > I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed process is > > even > > possible without plugins. Could we consider some manual processing > > of > > completed issues in relation to doc requrement? > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov < > > [hidden email]>: > > Hi Igniters, > > Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to Ignite's > documentation, and I believe documentation is an important part of > > every > > product, especially such a complex product as Apache Ignite. > > I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to increase our > > chances > > of > > making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The basic idea is > > to > > have a Jira issue with the Component field set to "Documentation" > > for > > every feature that needs to be documented. This will ensure that > > there > > are documentation issues that cover the entire product > > functionality. > > Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an article on the > > subject. > > This is how I envision it to work technically. A new field > > (checkbox) > > is > > added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox indicates > > that > > the > > feature requested in this issue needs to be documented. The > > checkbox is > > selected by default. If the feature does not require > > documentation, > > then > > the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require > > documentation, > > the > > author creates a related Jira issue selecting "Documentation" in > > the > > Component field, providing details on what exactly should be > > documented. > > The field is called "Requires documentation" or similarly. It > > could > > be > > also useful to create a new issue type for documentation issues > exclusively. > > Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out > > 1. issues that do not require documentation, > 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, and > 3. issues that require documentation but have no related issues > > (which > > means that the author forgot to create a documentation issue > > for > > it). > > > Please share your thoughts about this. > > > Best regards, > > Artem Budnikov > > > > > > > |
|
|
I've noticed now INFRA asks for feedback from us.
Artem, will you provide feedback on done change in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16803 вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:01, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]>: > Hi Artem, > > This is page in Ignite space, so you could do updates. Of course, if you > have access to Ignite space in wiki. If not, please sign up and share your > wiki login (id). > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 10:25, Artem Budnikov <[hidden email]>: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Despite what I've been told about INFRA, it responded exceptionally >> quickly and added the field :-) >> >> I think the page describing the process of creating IGNITE issues >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-TicketCreation> >> needs to be updated to reflect the changes related to documentation >> process. Could someone do this? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Artem >> On 23.07.2018 18:00, Artem Budnikov wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> I created an issue in the Apache INFRA project: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16803 >> >> Cheers, >> >> Artem >> >> >> On 19.07.2018 22:58, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >> >> I appologize, initially I misundersood proposal. I've concluded that new >> doc issue will be created automatically by closing original ticket, - >> this >> can be done by plugin only. >> >> If we just introduce flag or combobox for indicate doc is required, there >> is no technical issues, it is defenetely possible. So +1 from my side >> without concerns. >> >> чт, 19 июл. 2018 г. в 22:02, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> >> <[hidden email]>: >> >> Ok, if all our doc writers are in the agreement then let's give a couple >> of >> days to our fellow Igniters to share alternate opinions. >> >> Artem, if you don't hear back by Monday then feel free to create an INFRA >> ticket. >> >> -- >> Denis >> >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:43 AM Prachi Garg <[hidden email]> >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> I totally agree with Denis's point - >> >> "Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is >> >> that >> >> Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a >> release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete >> >> the >> >> docs in advance." >> >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]> >> <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >> Yes, I agree. My concern is related only to process implementation >> >> aspect, >> >> I wonder if it is technically possible. >> >> Generally I like idea of automatic control. >> >> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 23:21, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> >> <[hidden email]>: >> >> Hi folks, >> >> Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets tracking less >> error-prone. The current approach implies that a contributor keeps in >> >> mind >> >> what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good memory, a doc JIRA >> counterpart will be created once the contribution is accepted. But the >> practice shows that the memory lets us down :) >> >> Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is >> >> that >> >> Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a >> release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete >> >> the >> >> docs in advance. >> >> -- >> Denis >> >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Dmitry, >> >> The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was to rectify >> >> the >> >> fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on an ad-hoc >> >> basis, >> >> and often issues are created when the lack of documentation becomes >> >> an >> >> issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. >> >> I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as efficient as the >> current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will have to be >> >> shared >> >> between multiple contributors and performed outside of JIRA, which >> >> has >> >> its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for improvement >> >> without >> >> creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. >> >> If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a field, then we >> should contact Apache Infra and find out. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Artem Budnikov >> >> >> On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >> >> Hi Artem, >> >> I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has potential for >> improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive and simple to >> understand. So if experienced tech writer will join community it >> >> could >> >> benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're very welcome to >> >> the >> >> community! >> >> About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need assistance >> >> of >> >> Apache >> >> Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other Apache >> >> project. >> >> And >> >> I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed process is >> >> even >> >> possible without plugins. Could we consider some manual processing >> >> of >> >> completed issues in relation to doc requrement? >> >> Sincerely, >> Dmitriy Pavlov >> >> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov < >> >> [hidden email]>: >> >> Hi Igniters, >> >> Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to Ignite's >> documentation, and I believe documentation is an important part of >> >> every >> >> product, especially such a complex product as Apache Ignite. >> >> I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to increase our >> >> chances >> >> of >> >> making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The basic idea is >> >> to >> >> have a Jira issue with the Component field set to "Documentation" >> >> for >> >> every feature that needs to be documented. This will ensure that >> >> there >> >> are documentation issues that cover the entire product >> >> functionality. >> >> Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an article on the >> >> subject. >> >> This is how I envision it to work technically. A new field >> >> (checkbox) >> >> is >> >> added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox indicates >> >> that >> >> the >> >> feature requested in this issue needs to be documented. The >> >> checkbox is >> >> selected by default. If the feature does not require >> >> documentation, >> >> then >> >> the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require >> >> documentation, >> >> the >> >> author creates a related Jira issue selecting "Documentation" in >> >> the >> >> Component field, providing details on what exactly should be >> >> documented. >> >> The field is called "Requires documentation" or similarly. It >> >> could >> >> be >> >> also useful to create a new issue type for documentation issues >> exclusively. >> >> Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out >> >> 1. issues that do not require documentation, >> 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, and >> 3. issues that require documentation but have no related issues >> >> (which >> >> means that the author forgot to create a documentation issue >> >> for >> >> it). >> >> >> Please share your thoughts about this. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Artem Budnikov >> >> >> >> >> >> >> |
|
|
Hi Dmitry,
I've added a comment to the issue. My Confluence ID is a.budnikov. Could you please grant me permissions required to edit pages. Thanks! Artem On 24.07.2018 16:58, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > I've noticed now INFRA asks for feedback from us. > > Artem, will you provide feedback on done change in > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16803 > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:01, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>: > > Hi Artem, > > This is page in Ignite space, so you could do updates. Of course, > if you have access to Ignite space in wiki. If not, please sign up > and share your wiki login (id). > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 10:25, Artem Budnikov > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>: > > Hi everyone, > > Despite what I've been told about INFRA, it responded > exceptionally quickly and added the field :-) > > I think the page describing the process of creating IGNITE > issues > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-TicketCreation> > needs to be updated to reflect the changes related to > documentation process. Could someone do this? > > Cheers, > > Artem > > On 23.07.2018 18:00, Artem Budnikov wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I created an issue in the Apache INFRA project: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16803 >> >> Cheers, >> >> Artem >> >> >> On 19.07.2018 22:58, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >>> I appologize, initially I misundersood proposal. I've >>> concluded that new >>> doc issue will be created automatically by closing original >>> ticket, - this >>> can be done by plugin only. >>> >>> If we just introduce flag or combobox for indicate doc is >>> required, there >>> is no technical issues, it is defenetely possible. So +1 >>> from my side >>> without concerns. >>> >>> чт, 19 июл. 2018 г. в 22:02, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>: >>> >>>> Ok, if all our doc writers are in the agreement then let's >>>> give a couple of >>>> days to our fellow Igniters to share alternate opinions. >>>> >>>> Artem, if you don't hear back by Monday then feel free to >>>> create an INFRA >>>> ticket. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Denis >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:43 AM Prachi Garg >>>> <[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I totally agree with Denis's point - >>>>> >>>>> "Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by >>>>> default, is >>>> that >>>>> Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks >>>>> before a >>>>> release, figure out details from source code contributors >>>>> and complete >>>> the >>>>> docs in advance." >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Dmitry Pavlov >>>>> <[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I agree. My concern is related only to process >>>>>> implementation >>>> aspect, >>>>>> I wonder if it is technically possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> Generally I like idea of automatic control. >>>>>> >>>>>> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 23:21, Denis Magda >>>>>> <[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets >>>>>>> tracking less >>>>>>> error-prone. The current approach implies that a >>>>>>> contributor keeps in >>>>>> mind >>>>>>> what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good >>>>>>> memory, a doc JIRA >>>>>>> counterpart will be created once the contribution is >>>>>>> accepted. But the >>>>>>> practice shows that the memory lets us down :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled >>>>>>> by default, is >>>>>> that >>>>>>> Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and >>>>>>> weeks before a >>>>>>> release, figure out details from source code >>>>>>> contributors and complete >>>>>> the >>>>>>> docs in advance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Denis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov < >>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dmitry, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was >>>>>>>> to rectify >>>> the >>>>>>>> fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on >>>>>>>> an ad-hoc >>>> basis, >>>>>>>> and often issues are created when the lack of >>>>>>>> documentation becomes >>>> an >>>>>>>> issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as >>>>>>>> efficient as the >>>>>>>> current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will >>>>>>>> have to be >>>> shared >>>>>>>> between multiple contributors and performed outside of >>>>>>>> JIRA, which >>>> has >>>>>>>> its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for >>>>>>>> improvement >>>> without >>>>>>>> creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a >>>>>>>> field, then we >>>>>>>> should contact Apache Infra and find out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Artem Budnikov >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Artem, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has >>>>>>>>> potential for >>>>>>>>> improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive >>>>>>>>> and simple to >>>>>>>>> understand. So if experienced tech writer will join >>>>>>>>> community it >>>>>> could >>>>>>>>> benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're >>>>>>>>> very welcome to >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> community! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need >>>>>>>>> assistance >>>> of >>>>>>>> Apache >>>>>>>>> Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other >>>>>>>>> Apache >>>> project. >>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed >>>>>>>>> process is >>>>>> even >>>>>>>>> possible without plugins. Could we consider some >>>>>>>>> manual processing >>>> of >>>>>>>>> completed issues in relation to doc requrement? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov < >>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to >>>>>>>>>> Ignite's >>>>>>>>>> documentation, and I believe documentation is an >>>>>>>>>> important part of >>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>> product, especially such a complex product as Apache >>>>>>>>>> Ignite. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to >>>>>>>>>> increase our >>>> chances >>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The >>>>>>>>>> basic idea is >>>> to >>>>>>>>>> have a Jira issue with the Component field set to >>>>>>>>>> "Documentation" >>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> every feature that needs to be documented. This will >>>>>>>>>> ensure that >>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> are documentation issues that cover the entire product >>>>>> functionality. >>>>>>>>>> Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an >>>>>>>>>> article on the >>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>> This is how I envision it to work technically. A new >>>>>>>>>> field >>>>>> (checkbox) >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox >>>>>>>>>> indicates >>>> that >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> feature requested in this issue needs to be >>>>>>>>>> documented. The >>>>>> checkbox is >>>>>>>>>> selected by default. If the feature does not require >>>> documentation, >>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require >>>> documentation, >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> author creates a related Jira issue selecting >>>>>>>>>> "Documentation" in >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Component field, providing details on what exactly >>>>>>>>>> should be >>>>>>>> documented. >>>>>>>>>> The field is called "Requires documentation" or >>>>>>>>>> similarly. It >>>> could >>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> also useful to create a new issue type for >>>>>>>>>> documentation issues >>>>>>>>>> exclusively. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. issues that do not require documentation, >>>>>>>>>> 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> 3. issues that require documentation but have no >>>>>>>>>> related issues >>>>>>>> (which >>>>>>>>>> means that the author forgot to create a >>>>>>>>>> documentation issue >>>>>> for >>>>>>>> it). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please share your thoughts about this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Artem Budnikov >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >> > |
|
|
Hi Artem,
Could you please check if you can edit now. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 14:03, Artem Budnikov <[hidden email]>: > Hi Dmitry, > > I've added a comment to the issue. > > My Confluence ID is a.budnikov. Could you please grant me permissions > required to edit pages. Thanks! > > > Artem > > On 24.07.2018 16:58, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > > I've noticed now INFRA asks for feedback from us. > > Artem, will you provide feedback on done change in > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16803 > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:01, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]>: > >> Hi Artem, >> >> This is page in Ignite space, so you could do updates. Of course, if you >> have access to Ignite space in wiki. If not, please sign up and share your >> wiki login (id). >> >> Sincerely, >> Dmitriy Pavlov >> >> вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 10:25, Artem Budnikov <[hidden email] >> >: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Despite what I've been told about INFRA, it responded exceptionally >>> quickly and added the field :-) >>> >>> I think the page describing the process of creating IGNITE issues >>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-TicketCreation> >>> needs to be updated to reflect the changes related to documentation >>> process. Could someone do this? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Artem >>> On 23.07.2018 18:00, Artem Budnikov wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I created an issue in the Apache INFRA project: >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16803 >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Artem >>> >>> >>> On 19.07.2018 22:58, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >>> >>> I appologize, initially I misundersood proposal. I've concluded that new >>> doc issue will be created automatically by closing original ticket, - >>> this >>> can be done by plugin only. >>> >>> If we just introduce flag or combobox for indicate doc is required, >>> there >>> is no technical issues, it is defenetely possible. So +1 from my side >>> without concerns. >>> >>> чт, 19 июл. 2018 г. в 22:02, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> >>> <[hidden email]>: >>> >>> Ok, if all our doc writers are in the agreement then let's give a couple >>> of >>> days to our fellow Igniters to share alternate opinions. >>> >>> Artem, if you don't hear back by Monday then feel free to create an >>> INFRA >>> ticket. >>> >>> -- >>> Denis >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:43 AM Prachi Garg <[hidden email]> >>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> I totally agree with Denis's point - >>> >>> "Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is >>> >>> that >>> >>> Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a >>> release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete >>> >>> the >>> >>> docs in advance." >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <[hidden email]> >>> <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, I agree. My concern is related only to process implementation >>> >>> aspect, >>> >>> I wonder if it is technically possible. >>> >>> Generally I like idea of automatic control. >>> >>> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 23:21, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> >>> <[hidden email]>: >>> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets tracking less >>> error-prone. The current approach implies that a contributor keeps in >>> >>> mind >>> >>> what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good memory, a doc JIRA >>> counterpart will be created once the contribution is accepted. But the >>> practice shows that the memory lets us down :) >>> >>> Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is >>> >>> that >>> >>> Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a >>> release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete >>> >>> the >>> >>> docs in advance. >>> >>> -- >>> Denis >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Dmitry, >>> >>> The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was to rectify >>> >>> the >>> >>> fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on an ad-hoc >>> >>> basis, >>> >>> and often issues are created when the lack of documentation becomes >>> >>> an >>> >>> issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. >>> >>> I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as efficient as the >>> current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will have to be >>> >>> shared >>> >>> between multiple contributors and performed outside of JIRA, which >>> >>> has >>> >>> its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for improvement >>> >>> without >>> >>> creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. >>> >>> If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a field, then we >>> should contact Apache Infra and find out. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Artem Budnikov >>> >>> >>> On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >>> >>> Hi Artem, >>> >>> I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has potential for >>> improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive and simple to >>> understand. So if experienced tech writer will join community it >>> >>> could >>> >>> benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're very welcome to >>> >>> the >>> >>> community! >>> >>> About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need assistance >>> >>> of >>> >>> Apache >>> >>> Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other Apache >>> >>> project. >>> >>> And >>> >>> I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed process is >>> >>> even >>> >>> possible without plugins. Could we consider some manual processing >>> >>> of >>> >>> completed issues in relation to doc requrement? >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Dmitriy Pavlov >>> >>> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov < >>> >>> [hidden email]>: >>> >>> Hi Igniters, >>> >>> Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to Ignite's >>> documentation, and I believe documentation is an important part of >>> >>> every >>> >>> product, especially such a complex product as Apache Ignite. >>> >>> I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to increase our >>> >>> chances >>> >>> of >>> >>> making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The basic idea is >>> >>> to >>> >>> have a Jira issue with the Component field set to "Documentation" >>> >>> for >>> >>> every feature that needs to be documented. This will ensure that >>> >>> there >>> >>> are documentation issues that cover the entire product >>> >>> functionality. >>> >>> Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an article on the >>> >>> subject. >>> >>> This is how I envision it to work technically. A new field >>> >>> (checkbox) >>> >>> is >>> >>> added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox indicates >>> >>> that >>> >>> the >>> >>> feature requested in this issue needs to be documented. The >>> >>> checkbox is >>> >>> selected by default. If the feature does not require >>> >>> documentation, >>> >>> then >>> >>> the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require >>> >>> documentation, >>> >>> the >>> >>> author creates a related Jira issue selecting "Documentation" in >>> >>> the >>> >>> Component field, providing details on what exactly should be >>> >>> documented. >>> >>> The field is called "Requires documentation" or similarly. It >>> >>> could >>> >>> be >>> >>> also useful to create a new issue type for documentation issues >>> exclusively. >>> >>> Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out >>> >>> 1. issues that do not require documentation, >>> 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, and >>> 3. issues that require documentation but have no related issues >>> >>> (which >>> >>> means that the author forgot to create a documentation issue >>> >>> for >>> >>> it). >>> >>> >>> Please share your thoughts about this. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Artem Budnikov >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > |
«
Return to Apache Ignite Developers - Legacy Mail Archive
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |