beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kenneth Tam <kentamina...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: beehive documentation: maintaining docs from many releases -- was: Re: updating the beehive web site -- a two pronged approach
Date Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:58:54 GMT
>   Actually, this is already done.  :)
> 
>   Take a look at SVN checkins 227458, which broke the documentation
> into two separate documentation roots for the site/ and release/, and
> 230614, which checked a copy of the generated site into
> docs/forrest/www.
> 
>   The current website at beehive.apache.org is running checked out of
> docs/forrest/www, and the branches/v1/m1 line has been updated to
> produce a doc kit that matches this structure.

Actually I am proposing something a little different (the work you did
to factor the version specific content from the version independent
content is key):

1) For the version-independent content, I'm proposing that we consider
cutting Forrest out of the picture altogether and just check in the
raw HTML.  It's not clear there's real value add in using Forrest
given the kind of content that will remain version independent, and it
would make things simpler/cleaner --   you wouldn't have to deal with
building/staging for most tweaks, like updating news items etc.  My
main argument for this is that having a super smooth path to updating
the site makes it more likely that such updates will happen :)

2) For the version-specific content (ie, the documentation for a
specific version), I'm proposing that we keep Forrest and check in a
copy of the generated content (a la what we're doing today with the
version-independent content).  This makes it easier to update the docs
for the trunk/"currently in development".

Here's a dir structure I think would work:

beehive/site/www/ : content is source controlled; we initially
populate it with the raw HTML of the version-independent content.

beehive/trunk/docs/forrest/ : same as it is today, content is source
controlled.  Builds into build/.., and staging target copies the
generated output to beehive/site/www/trunk.

beehive/site/www/trunk/ : as a subdir of www, content is souce
controlled.  Initially populated by building
beehive/trunk/docs/forrest, staging the result and submitting.

beehive/site/www/<branch or version name> : peers of www/trunk exist
for each interesting branch or version.  Unless there are parallel
lines of active development, these peers are unlikely to see much
action.

FWIW, I don't think it's that important that the "chrome" around the
various version-specific documentation (aka "releases") be very
similar to what's around the version-independent content (aka "the
website").  I think we need to avoid gross clashes (like totally
different colour/font schemes), but otherwise I don't think it's a big
deal.  Having a simpler update process seems more important to me.

>   There is a little quirky-ness with doing it this way, mostly related
> to having duplicated images and dealing with tab names.  I think it's
> worth dealing with that for the time being as it's not easy to keep
> the release and website content looking similar unless Forrest is used
> to create them.  Lots of projects at Apache are going this way --
> checking the website in -- so I'd guess that at some point, they'll
> have to solve some of the quirks with having two Forrest content
> roots.
> 
>   The file trunk/docs/how_to_contribute_docs.txt has more information
> about how this process works.
> 
> Eddie
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/16/05, Kenneth Tam <kentaminator@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With the TLP change, it seems like a really good time to revisit
> > this.. I'm a little confused over where things are?  I gather from the
> > thread that Forrest essentially has problems with multiple source
> > roots.. has the following (somewhat naive) approach been debated?:
> >
> > Keep the core site content (home page, nav links to version-specific
> > content, infrastructure info, mailing lists, etc) as raw HTML checked
> > into svn as a peer of trunk (e.g. "beehive/core-site".
> >
> > Continue to use Forrest to build/maintain version-specific content.  A
> > Forrest site would potentially exist for every branch, including
> > trunk.  We'd manually edit content in the core site to specify links
> > to whatever version-specific sites we want to be serve out.
> >
> > Note this says nothing about how the live site is updated, just how
> > the source content is version control managed.  I like the idea of
> > having a copy of the "built" version-specific content checked into
> > each branch (ie, "beehive/trunk/docs/publish"), and then having the
> > live server keep a checked out copy of each branch's docs (as well as
> > the core site).
> >
> > On 7/21/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@bea.com> wrote:
> > > All--
> > >
> > >    Given that we're en route to leaving incubation and doing a Beehive
> > > 1.0 release, the need to maintain multiple concurrent versions of
> > > documentation is growing.
> > >
> > >    I'm starting to refactor the trunk/docs/ directory to split the docs
> > > into two parts:
> > >
> > >    - site docs (committers, mailing lists, release links, etc)
> > >    - release docs (v1m1, v1, etc)
> > >
> > > Should have the first part of this done today by turning:
> > >
> > >    trunk/docs/forrest/src/documentation/content/xdocs/
> > >
> > > into a directory structured as:
> > >
> > >    trunk/docs/forrest/src/documentation/content/xdocs/
> > >                                                   index.xml
> > >                                                   site.xml
> > >                                                   tabs.xml
> > >                                                   downloads.xml
> > >                                                   ...and so on...
> > >                                                   release/
> > >                                                        pageflow/
> > >                                                        controls/
> > >                                                        system-controls/
> > >                                                        wsm/
> > >                                                        index.xml
> > >
> > > where release/ contains the docs for a given Beehive source line in SVN.
> > >
> > >    This is necessary work but isn't sufficient to break the release and
> > > site docs apart, so we should continue the discussion below if anyone
> > > has additional input.  The next step would be to move the site
> > > documentation (index.xml, site.xml, downloads.xml, mailinglists.xml,
> > > etc) into a site/ directory that is peer to trunk/ for easier versioning
> > > / updating.
> > >
> > >    Just wanted to let everyone know the work is starting.
> > >
> > >    :)
> > >
> > > Eddie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Eddie ONeil wrote:
> > > >   This fork of this discussion is meant to address the issues and
> > > > requirements around maintaining multiple versions of the Beehive
> > > > documentation on the website at once.  Today, there isn't an easy way
> > > > to do this.
> > > >
> > > >   The general proposal is at the bottom of this thread which includes
> > > > Steve's responses.
> > > >
> > > > Eddie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>>>More concerns about (2):
> > > >>>>>------------------------
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>Just to make sure I understand proposal (2), let me restate
it:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>  We should make a distinction between the release-dependent
and release-independent docs.
> > > >>>>>  Release-dependent docs include the majority of topics
like the user guides, tutorials, etc.
> > > >>>>>  Release-independent docs include the more static parts
of the site, like the download page,
> > > >>>>>  mailing-list page, etc.
> > > >>>>>  The release-independent docs should be moved up a level
to beehive/site, where Forrest will
> > > >>>>>  treat them like a relatively static site template.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>That's my restatement of proposal (2).  If I've misunderstood
it, stop now, and set me straight.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>If I have restated (2) correctly, I don't think that Forrest
can handle it.  Even if we can find a way for Forrest to handle and build against XML pages
in two disparate directories, there are still other problems.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Hm.  Guess the question I'd ask here is this -- why is this
a problem
> > > >>>>for Forrest?  We need to move the doc infrastructure to a place
where
> > > >>>>this is possible (note, these are hypothetical release numbers):
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>beehive/
> > > >>>> branches/
> > > >>>>   v1/
> > > >>>>     v1.0/
> > > >>>>     v1.1/
> > > >>>>     v1.2/
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>which will result in a website that looks like:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> beehive/
> > > >>>>   <core-site>
> > > >>>>   releases/
> > > >>>>     v1.0/
> > > >>>>     v1.1/
> > > >>>>     v1.2/
> > > >>>>   nightly/
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>where the v1.0, v1.1, v1.2 docs are generated from the branches/
> > > >>>>directory and nightly/ comes from trunk/.  Currently, we don't
seem to
> > > >>>>have a clean way to do this because the entire site is re-generated
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>from the current release.  So, things like the downloads, mailinglist,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>and other version agnostic content comes from the site generated
by
> > > >>>>the most recent release.  If a committer wants to add a "news"
bullet,
> > > >>>>post v1/m1, they've got to re-generate the site from the branch.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Seems that it'd be easier to make a change to the Forrest XML
file,
> > > >>>>rebuild the version-agnostic content and update a single file...
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>It is just difficult, in principle, to make a division
between non-versioned parts of a doc set and versioned parts.  For example, take the download
page.  If we make it a non-versioned part of the doc set, really a common, templated element
to any doc set, then, how do we handle regeneration of an older version of the doc?  Suppose
we need to regenerate version 1: Do we included the download page, with its reference/link
to version 2?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>To me the download page isn't something that needs to branch
with the
> > > >>>>source tree -- it would already be versioned in SVN and if
we needed
> > > >>>>an older version of the doc, we'd just sync back to an older
SVN
> > > >>>>version fo the file.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Is there any way to assemble documentation generated by multiple
> > > >>>>Forrest runs?  Seems that if we're ever to support multiple
versions
> > > >>>>of the documentation that we'll need to be able to do this.
 If it's
> > > >>>>possible, we can just go low-tech and checkin the version-agnostic
> > > >>>>parts of the site and generate the doc for each release and
copy it as
> > > >>>>we do today.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>All that said, I don't really have any brilliant ideas
right now to deal with the pain that is coming our way as the versions of the docs start to
proliferate.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>Maybe we need a script on the live site server that can
run the doc targets and post the results?  That way you won't need to run processes on two
different machines.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>-steveh.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>From: Eddie ONeil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
> > > >>>>>Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 2:22 PM
> > > >>>>>To: Beehive Developers
> > > >>>>>Subject: Re: updating the beehive web site -- a two pronged
approach
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>Steve--
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Comments in line.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>Eddie
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>On 6/8/05, Steve Hanson <steveh@bea.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Hi all:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Concerns and questions concerning (1):
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>A system very similar to proposal (1) was in place
for the v1-alpha release.
> > > >>>>>>One complaint about it at the time was that Javadoc-generated
HTML pages were being checked in to SVN.  I am not sure how the current proposal (1) avoids
this drawback.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>You're correct -- the Javadoc is checked into SVN, but
it's done so in
> > > >>>>>a location like:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> beehive/
> > > >>>>>   site/
> > > >>>>>     publish/
> > > >>>>>       ...
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>which keeps it entirely out of the beehive/trunk directory.
 As I
> > > >>>>>recall, keeping the Javadoc in trunk/ was the issue as
we were always
> > > >>>>>sync-ing updates.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>The difference here is that it's up at the beehive/site/...
level
> > > >>>>>which devs don't usually need to sync.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>One question: Are we going to be checking in different
doc sets for each released version of Beehive, so that the tree would look (something) like?:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>beehive
> > > >>>>>> site
> > > >>>>>>   archives
> > > >>>>>>     v1
> > > >>>>>>     v2
> > > >>>>>>   current
> > > >>>>>>     v3
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>In the long run, yes.  This would make it *significantly*
easier to
> > > >>>>>keep the alpha, beta, m1, etc docs on the site and allow
them to be
> > > >>>>>updateable independently.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Concerns about (2):
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>This proposal sounds like it would break Forrest. 
Forrest is looking for one directory that contains the XML source files: I doubt it can handle
a disparate set of directories.  Runnng Forrest mulitple times and slapping the genered HTML
together afterwards won't work either, because Forrest needs to do link checking and build
a single TOC.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>Actually, I don't think it breaks Forrest if to generate
the entire
> > > >>>>>doc-kit, Forrest runs multiple times.  For example, to
update the
> > > >>>>>documentation for a nightly, we'd do something like this:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>- build a nightly distribution from trunk/
> > > >>>>>- copy the documentation from trunk/build/dist/... up to
> > > >>>>>site/publish/docs/nightly/...
> > > >>>>>- svn commit the site/publish/docs/nightly directory
> > > >>>>>- svn checkout on the live-site to refresh the web site
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>Make sense?  If I'm nuts, let me know.  Just trying to
lower the bar
> > > >>>>>for updating the site and for allowing us to keep multiple
copies of
> > > >>>>>the doc on the site at once.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Craig R. McClanahan: I know that you have talked about
these very issues in Struts...do you have any insights here?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>-steve h.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>From: Eddie ONeil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
> > > >>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 8:05 PM
> > > >>>>>>To: Beehive Developers
> > > >>>>>>Subject: updating the beehive web site -- a two pronged
approach
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>All--
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> After having worked on the Beehive website some in
the last couple
> > > >>>>>>of days, I've got a couple of suggestions for how we
can make this
> > > >>>>>>process significantly easier.  The approach has two
parts...  The
> > > >>>>>>first is the most (immediately) important.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>1) check the generated website into beehive/site in
a read-only part
> > > >>>>>>of SVN.  This would allow committers to generate the
website, check it
> > > >>>>>>into SVN, and then check it out on the server.  This
process avoids
> > > >>>>>>the generation and "scp" of a .zip file to the server
and then the
> > > >>>>>>"ssh" to crack the .zip file.  To update the site,
just run "svn
> > > >>>>>>update" on the live site.  This also makes it easier
to roll back
> > > >>>>>>after a failed change.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>2) the next step would be to decouple the release-independent
content
> > > >>>>>>of the site from the release-dependent documentation.
 This would move
> > > >>>>>>things like the links to the mailinglists, downloads
page, news page,
> > > >>>>>>etc out of trunk/ and up a level so that it's versioned
independently
> > > >>>>>>of the versions of Beehive.  This is checked into something
like:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>beehive/
> > > >>>>>> site/
> > > >>>>>>   author/ -- location for the content in the tree
> > > >>>>>>   publish/ -- location of the generated site
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Then, the release documentation can be generated, copied
up to
> > > >>>>>>publish/, checked into the tree, and "svn update"ed
on the live site.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Step (1) is something we can do now and would make
updating the site
> > > >>>>>>quite easy.  Step (2) is something we can do longer
term but would
> > > >>>>>>decouple the release documentation from the more static
website.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thoughts?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Eddie
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message