[feedhenry-dev] Suggestion/Discussion - Removal of AeroGear.org Production Branch

Wojciech Trocki wtrocki at redhat.com
Tue Dec 19 09:34:19 UTC 2017

+1 for kicking out some investigations.
Let me know if you need something specific.
I see that most of the JBoos products now using ascidocs based

For example:

> However I'm not sure if this means  revamping  aerogear.org or the
introduction of a new site docs.aerogear.org ?

Aerogear is project aggregator website so aproach will need to be different
than when building webpage for single project.
IMHO best is to refresh aerogear webpage layout to support project
subpages. For example


Example layout:

[image: Inline image 1]
Then each of this subpages can have general information, links to
documentation, supported versions etc.
This aproach is really common for open source projects aggregators.

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Paul Wright <pwright at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Laura, All,
> I'd like to follow up about the suggestion of a new site, thinking
> specifically about:
> * much of the existing content is out of date
> * there is a lot of 'formerly feedhenry) material to be published next
> year (eg mcp, sync)
> * the rendering toolchain is sub-optimal (in my POV)
> * big changes are happening anyway (now is the opportunity)
> However I'm not sure if this means  revamping  aerogear.org or the
> introduction of a new site docs.aerogear.org ?
> So, let me propose this, which is what I'd like to see:
> * Versioned docs for each component
> * A doc set for combining a set of components into a release
> * An asciidoc-first approach to the docs (altho I'd like to see markdown
> still supported for blogs/etc)
> With this in mind, I'm playing with asciibinder, for example, see the
> digger docs [1], this has the advantage:
> * it's what OpenShift uses
> * it's geared towards complex doc sets
> * it's geared to multiple version doc sets
> * it's lightweight and gathering some momentum (eg fedora are now using it)
> Maybe it's used for everything but the home page as per OS [2]
> Or maybe the existing aerogear.org lives on, and users only hit the
> asciibinder html at a lower level?
> thanks,
> Paul
> [1] https://5-114535426-gh.circle-artifacts.com/0/home/circleci/
> docs/_preview/digger/latest/installation/digger-install-intro.html
> [2] https://docs.openshift.com/
> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:56:57 +0000
> From: Laura Fitzgerald <lfitzger at redhat.com> <lfitzger at redhat.com>
> To: AeroGear Developer Mailing List <aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org> <aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>,
> 	feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [feedhenry-dev] Suggestion/Discussion - Removal of
> 	AeroGear.org	Production Branch
> Message-ID:
> 	<CA+jLkhW2g4rrLfptKKUnAN5=LnMLksErnjXHnVXWVr7Fw9xcnA at mail.gmail.com> <CA+jLkhW2g4rrLfptKKUnAN5=LnMLksErnjXHnVXWVr7Fw9xcnA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Hi all,
> I had sent this email re improving the way that we pubish aerogear.org.
> Some may have seen it and replied but as there is some problems with
> aerogear-dev mailing and there has been some further discussions I wanted
> to reopen a conversation re Aerogear.org.
> With the move to the aerogear org there has been some conversation aroung
> an overhaul of the aerogear.org website.
> It was also suggested that we could go with a brand new site rather than
> rejigging the old site.
> I'm thinking that it would be worth having a discussion around how we would
> go about this.
> If anyone has particular interest in this and/or experience with the old
> site and existing tech and wants to open a proposal/discussion re tech
> stack, design, content etc I think it would be suitable to to do that via
> the proposals repo [1] or via some discussion here.
> I've been involved in adding some content recently with the Aerogear Digger
> Project and my vote would be for creating something new and shiny!!!
> Wdy guys t?
> [1] https://github.com/aerogear/proposals
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Laura Fitzgerald <lfitzger at redhat.com> <lfitzger at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have recently gone through the process of publishing documentation for
> AeroGear Digger to aerogear.org.
> The process for adding docs for digger was as follows:
> - Make changes on Feature Branch over a period of time.
> - At some point merge lots of commits (difficult to review) from Feature
> Branch to master.
> - This publishes to staging.aerogear.org (build needs to be manually
> triggered in Jenkins)
> - At some point merge master (again with lots of commits) to production
> branch
> - This publishes to aerogear.org (build needs to be manually triggered)
> Out of this we attempted to improve the process by adding development
> steps to the README [1] outlining that
> -> each change should be verified on it's own -> merged to master -> and
> then merged to production
> removing the wait time and merges which involved lots of commits and
> changes.
> *I think there are a few things we can do to make this better. (simpler)*
> *1) How?*
> Remove the production branch (and related steps) altogether.
> *Why?*
> - All this documentation is done in the open.
> - All branches are visible to all users/developers.
> - staging.aerogear.org is not private so I don't see that we gain
> something by having this step.
> - Changes can be verified locally by building the website using the steps
> in the README [2] before being merged to master.
> *2) How?*
> Automate the publishing of the site
> *Why?*
> Right now the building of the site has to be triggered manually via a
> Jenkins instance on cloudbees. If we remove production and enforce that all
> changes are fully verified before being merged to master then we can
> automate that any new changes are published immediately once merged to
> master.
> *3) How?*
> Add some sort of versioning to the documentation. This could be in the
> form of tagging the repo once we have a release of a product.
> *Why?*
> If we are always publishing docs once a change is made to the product then
> we should version the documentation so we know which version of the docs
> matches older versions of the product.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> I'm really interested in some feedback on this. Let me know what you
> think. Is there a better/simpler way to do it than I suggested?
> [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/blob/
> master/README.md#development-steps
> [2] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/blob/
> master/README.md#building
> --
> Red Hat Mobile <https://www.redhat.com/> <https://www.redhat.com/>
> Communications House, Cork Road
> Waterford City, Ireland X91NY33
> lfitzger at redhat.com    IM: lfitzgerald<https://red.ht/sig> <https://red.ht/sig>
> _______________________________________________
> feedhenry-dev mailing list
> feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev



Red Hat Mobile <https://www.redhat.com/>

IM: wtrocki
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/attachments/20171219/5411cfea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2017-12-19 at 9.28.29 AM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 300684 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/attachments/20171219/5411cfea/attachment.png>

More information about the feedhenry-dev mailing list