ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Documenting Ignite
Date Wed, 18 Jul 2018 13:14:29 GMT
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

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?

Dmitriy Pavlov

ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov <a.budnikov.ignite@gmail.com>:

> 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

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message