16:00:32 <acozine> #startmeeting Docs Working Group aka DaWGs
16:00:32 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Feb  9 16:00:32 2021 UTC.
16:00:32 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:32 <zodbot> The chair is acozine. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:32 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:32 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'docs_working_group_aka_dawgs'
16:00:36 <acozine> #topic opening chatter
16:00:38 <acozine> who's around?
16:00:42 <samccann> o/
16:00:44 <lmodemal> DING DING DING!  DaWGs (documentation working group meeting) happening now https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/579
16:00:47 <sommersoft> o/
16:00:52 <lmodemal> Hey all!
16:00:55 <acozine> #chair samccann lmodemal felixfontein sommersoft
16:00:55 <zodbot> Current chairs: acozine felixfontein lmodemal samccann sommersoft
16:01:55 <felixfontein> hi!
16:02:33 <acozine> tadeboro: abadger1999 dericcrago dmsimard baptistemm briantist cyberpear jlouthan madonius mrproper tremble you folks talking docs today?
16:02:44 <tadeboro> o/
16:02:48 * dericcrago waves
16:02:53 <acozine> #chair tadeboro dericcrago
16:02:53 <zodbot> Current chairs: acozine dericcrago felixfontein lmodemal samccann sommersoft tadeboro
16:02:56 <tremble> lurking but I have conflicting meetings in this slot
16:02:58 <abadger1999> Greetings and salutations :-)
16:02:58 <cyberpear> Busy today
16:03:01 <acozine> welcome, welcome!
16:03:07 <acozine> #chair abadger1999
16:03:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 acozine dericcrago felixfontein lmodemal samccann sommersoft tadeboro
16:03:26 <acozine> we'll miss you cyberpear
16:03:39 <acozine> tremble: I won't make you furniture, but chime in if/when you can
16:03:48 <tremble> :)
16:03:55 <jlouthan> can I stick around? I am a RHer--Automation Consultant :D
16:04:03 <acozine> jlouthan: absolutely!
16:04:03 <samccann> please do!
16:04:33 <acozine> please note: being a RHer (employee of Red Hat) is NOT REQUIRED
16:04:45 <acozine> this is a community meeting and everyone is welcome
16:05:18 <samccann> #chair jlouthan
16:05:18 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 acozine dericcrago felixfontein jlouthan lmodemal samccann sommersoft tadeboro
16:05:38 <samccann> that gives you the ability to add notes to the meeting minutes etc (with #info)
16:05:57 <acozine> the Ansible docs can use as many eyes, brains, and perspectives as possible
16:06:38 <acozine> official agenda for today is √
16:06:39 <acozine> er
16:06:41 <acozine> https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/579#issuecomment-771953772
16:06:45 * acozine can't type today
16:07:17 <acozine> I think we'll lead off with the second item
16:07:23 <acozine> #topic new landing pages!
16:07:30 * abadger1999 wonders where the check mark key lives on acozine's keyboard ;-)
16:07:53 <acozine> heh - it's SOME_WRONG_KEY-v
16:07:56 <felixfontein> (maybe magic with the compose key?)
16:07:57 <tadeboro> acozine: That typo was impressive (I am mathematician by heart).
16:07:57 * lmodemal pretty impressive
16:08:25 <acozine> apparently checkmark is shorthand for "failed paste"
16:08:42 <felixfontein> hmm, indeed, could be the beginning of a root (and not a checkmark)
16:09:06 <tadeboro> It looks like \sqrt here.
16:09:38 <abadger1999> Nice :-)
16:09:44 * abadger1999 is sorry for derailing ;-)
16:09:46 <acozine> this is what I get for changing keyboards ;-)
16:09:58 <samccann> #link https://docs.ansible.com/
16:10:15 <acozine> after many years of planning/trying and many months of work, we finally unveiled the new landing pages yesterday
16:10:15 <samccann> That's the new look/feel... not as fun as keyboard checkmarks tho ;-)
16:10:59 <acozine> the new design replaces the old solid-colored rectangles
16:11:04 <felixfontein> (I unfortunately forgot how it looked before that)
16:11:20 <acozine> and it introduces more clicks before you reach an actual docs page
16:11:21 <tadeboro> felixfontein: COnsider yourself lucky.
16:11:31 <acozine> tadeboro: +1
16:11:45 <lmodemal> I like it!
16:12:21 <acozine> it gives a lot more context for newcomers, and it gives us a lot more flexibility - places to put text, etc.
16:12:27 <tadeboro> I really like the new design. Plus, those few extra clicks did not bother me too much.
16:12:46 <lmodemal> +1
16:13:48 <acozine> most experienced docs users jump straight from a search engine to an actual docs page, so this change will be more visible to newcomers
16:14:39 <acozine> shout-out to samccann who worked with our marketing and design team, got the pages onto the test site, and got the PR ready for prime time!
16:14:40 <sommersoft> I'd concur that the extra clicks are worth a better vectoring system.
16:15:27 <felixfontein> is it intentional that there isn't an obvious 'link back' from a subpage to the main index?
16:15:31 <lmodemal> woot woot samccann!
16:15:43 <felixfontein> in any case, looks really great!
16:15:54 <acozine> felixfontein: hmm, probably not
16:16:23 <felixfontein> (it probably also works a lot better on mobile and screen readers)
16:16:54 <acozine> I was just going to say, we know there will be adjustments, so we'd be grateful if you could take a look and let us know of any "rough edges" you see
16:17:17 <tadeboro> I am so used clicking on the top-left logo on the web page to go to the root that I did not even notice there is no "back" link.
16:17:44 <acozine> also, raise a glass of your preferred beverage some time this week to the success of the new landing pages
16:17:47 <felixfontein> tadeboro: it is obvious to some people, but probably not to everyone
16:17:55 <sommersoft> ^ same. A small "Home" next to "Documentation" on the navbar for the subpages could make it clearer.
16:18:01 * felixfontein raises a glass of water
16:18:11 <acozine> I wish we could have a contributors' summit (non-virtual) and do it in person
16:18:15 <acozine> maybe next year
16:18:22 <acozine> heh
16:18:33 <felixfontein> yep, pretty surely not this year :)
16:19:01 <tadeboro> felixfontein: I am not saying this is good. I am just pointing out that the current state of web trained me well for such designs ;)
16:19:06 <acozine> thanks sommersoft felixfontein we'll look at adding a "Home" link on those pages
16:19:56 <acozine> we don't need to spend more of the meeting on it
16:20:06 <abadger1999> action item"?
16:20:08 <acozine> but if you do see anything else, hop on the chat channel any time
16:20:27 <samccann> #action samccann to followup with the html designer about a home button
16:20:38 <acozine> abadger1999 samccann thanks
16:20:46 <acozine> #topic docsite split update
16:20:47 <abadger1999> Cool :-)
16:20:55 <acozine> samccann: you want to take this one?
16:20:58 <samccann> Sure
16:21:24 <samccann> So we have a functioning PR that can produce both docsites but we have to make some decisions before progressing further
16:21:48 <samccann> #link https://hackmd.io/mvjYig49R5SQbNHzsd5jfQ?both#Release-management-with-automated-docs-build
16:22:01 <baptistemm> hello
16:22:17 <samccann> The gist of it is, we have jenkins builds internally that build ansible-core release, and that triggers a jenkins job to build the docs as well
16:22:34 <acozine> baptistemm: welcome!
16:22:36 <samccann> Somewhere between them, we need logic to detect what kind of docs to build
16:22:37 <acozine> #chair baptistemm
16:22:37 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 acozine baptistemm dericcrago felixfontein jlouthan lmodemal samccann sommersoft tadeboro
16:22:38 <baptistemm> heya
16:23:09 <samccann> So Ansible 2.10 or earlier - build all the docs.  2.11/devel and later - build just core docs.  And Ansible the package (3x and later) - build Ansible the package docs
16:23:10 * baptistemm scrollbacks quickly to see the beginning
16:23:31 <felixfontein> samccann: how ready is that PR?
16:23:41 <samccann> #info https://hackmd.io/mvjYig49R5SQbNHzsd5jfQ?both#Solution is an attempt at ways to solve this
16:24:19 <samccann> felixfontein - I want to get this decided first, then update the PR as needed, and then rebase...and then have a good cry because that'll be hard, THEN get some solid reviews on the PR
16:24:34 <acozine> quick background for newcomers: with the divergence of versions between ansible-core (next release 2.11) and ansible the package (next release 3.0), we need to start documenting both "sides" of the split
16:25:23 <samccann> What I'm leaning toward is - put all the logic on 'what version am i building, and thus what to do' in the docs jenkins builds - one for old ansible/core, and one for Ansible the package.
16:25:26 <jlouthan> (y)
16:26:01 * samccann pauses to see what folks think about all that
16:26:33 <abadger1999> @samccann hmmm.... In the Makefile, do you have the truncated build using make coredocs or make webdocs?
16:26:58 <abadger1999> truncated build == ansible-core documentation
16:27:02 <acozine> abadger1999: the "truncated build" is the ansible-core one?
16:27:04 <acozine> heh, thanks
16:27:47 <samccann> abadger1999: in the current pr, make webdocs makes the Ansible pkg docs today. and make coredoce does the truncated (just core) docs
16:28:19 <samccann> So said jenkins logic would:
16:28:19 <samccann> 1 - choose which make command to use
16:28:19 <samccann> 2 - choose which url to publish to
16:28:33 <samccann> (core docs will publish to docs.ansible.com/ansible-core/
16:28:42 <samccann> )  (must end paren)
16:29:06 <acozine> once a copyeditor, always a copyeditor
16:29:23 <samccann> programmer actually, but yeah.  Number of times I got caught by that 'back in the day'
16:29:27 <acozine> heh
16:30:35 <abadger1999> So, I think it would be less programming changes if the current jenkins job grew a VERSION parameter and then that job built the ansible package docs.
16:31:07 <abadger1999> Then a new jenkns job to build the ansible-core docs from here on out.
16:31:12 <samccann> which jenkins job? the ansible release, or  the docs jenkins jobs
16:31:32 <acozine> I think putting the logic in the Jenkins jobs makes sense - anyone building the docs locally knows what version they want and can pick the branch that produces it - it's only for the published website that we need to worry about the difference between core and package
16:31:38 <abadger1999> the ansible package docs for 2.9, 2.10, 3, 4, etc should all be buildable via the first job.
16:31:46 <abadger1999> samccann: The docs jenkins job.
16:32:08 <samccann> abadger1999 okay that's what we have today
16:32:27 <samccann> but the conundrum - the ansible release job triggers one docs build today
16:32:29 <baptistemm> acozine: +1
16:32:36 <abadger1999> The change  to the jenkins job would be Current job would invoke the make command like: `make webdocs VERSION=2.10` [or 2.9, 3,4, etc]
16:32:38 <samccann> but it needs to choose then,
16:33:03 <abadger1999> The new jenkins job should look like the current job but invoke `make coredocs` instead of make webdocs.
16:33:27 <samccann> abadger1999 ok I'm lost. You want the 'make webdocs' command to actually pull in a version number and decide what to do? as in put this complexity in the Makefile?
16:33:27 <abadger1999> acozine: The branch no longer has all the information necessary, though.
16:34:04 <abadger1999> Someone building locally will still need to specify whether they're building ansible package docs for ansible-2.10 or ansible-3 since both will use the stable-2.10 branch
16:34:35 <samccann> Yeah so stable-2.10 has been the sticky point for sure
16:34:53 <abadger1999> samccann: Current jenkins job: 1 new parameter: the version of the ansible package to build for.
16:35:25 <abadger1999> The makefile in ansible/ansible then passesthat on to the hacking/build-ansible.py script.
16:36:02 <abadger1999> I think that script probably decides what to do (although, maybe it passes it through to antsibull-docs.... I haven't thought that far into it yet...)
16:36:09 <samccann> abadger1999 okay this is likely a longer discussion cuz my brain just isn't wrapping around your suggestions. Maybe you and I can discuss later?
16:36:20 <abadger1999> Sure.
16:36:33 <samccann> ok thanks
16:36:37 <samccann> before we move off though
16:36:41 <abadger1999> I have two releases today.  Tomorrow might be good.
16:36:53 <samccann> maybe we chat abit about the local build options in stable-2.10
16:36:55 <acozine> ooof
16:36:59 <samccann> (abadger1999 sure)
16:37:04 <abadger1999> Cool
16:37:08 <abadger1999> <nod>
16:37:28 <abadger1999> So if I'm building locally, I think I have the stable-2.10 branch checked out and have three hoices:
16:37:29 <samccann> So 2.10 needs to build - the full docs (aka 2.10) and the Ansible pkg docs (aka 3.x)
16:37:47 <samccann> we don't need to build core from stable-2.10
16:38:18 <samccann> and we don't need to build the full docs from /devel/ or any future branch
16:38:19 <abadger1999> make coredocs => builds the ansible-base documentation   ;; make webdocs VERSION=2.10 => builds the ansible 2.10 documentation ;; make webdocs VERSIOn=3 => builds the ansible-3.x documentation.
16:38:53 <samccann> yeah I'm wondering if make coredocs is 'worth it' in stable-2.10
16:39:23 <abadger1999> <nod>
16:39:37 <samccann> the basic problem - stable 2.10 NEEDS 2 of the three abadger mentions above... devel and later needs 2 of the three (but a different 2).
16:39:44 <acozine> if it make the process more consistent, I'd be in favor, unless it's very difficult to do
16:39:51 <abadger1999> I'd probably implement it because we'd implement in devel and then backport to the stable branch and it will be easier to backport the whole thing.
16:39:56 <abadger1999> But we might not use it.
16:40:14 <samccann> but that requires setting up the abilityu to make all the docs in devel
16:40:27 <acozine> yeah, I'd rather have it and not use it than do a workaround to leave it out and make 2.10 even more of a special case
16:40:32 <samccann> and all future releases
16:40:56 <samccann> well I'm seeing the opposite - why have 'make all the docs' in devel and every release thereafter when we don't need it?
16:41:07 <acozine> we might have this again in future, where we need to build two package versions out of a single core branch
16:41:18 <abadger1999> samccann: true.  But I think (famous last words..) that will be easier with this change.  Right now, devel doesn't build the collection docs because we can't autodetect the version there.  But with this change, the user is specifying the version so we no longer need to autodetect.
16:41:20 <samccann> I suppose we could create it all in devel (ability to make all three), backport it cleanly, then take it back out of devel
16:41:58 <samccann> acozine - that's not the problem. We will have that ability to make both docs out of one branch.  What we are talking about is thebilitiy to make THREE docsets out of one branch, now and forever
16:42:05 <abadger1999> samccann: if it's in devel, then when stable-2.11 branches, it will be in stable-2.11
16:42:18 <abadger1999> otherwise we'd have to reimplement it for every stable-X.Y branch.
16:42:37 <samccann> yeah that's my point. the PR will work for ansible docs and core docs in devel and all future branches
16:42:50 <abadger1999> yep.  And I think that's what we want?
16:43:10 <acozine> yeah, me too - samccann which one do you want to exclude from devel?
16:43:14 <samccann> but it won't work as a clean backport to 2.10 unless we add that THIRD option (which requires more than makefile changes..it may require a third index.rst etc
16:43:25 <abadger1999> because we don't know yet whether the release schedules will match up with each other (now and forever)
16:43:28 <samccann> I want to excludee 'make all the docs' from devel
16:43:45 <samccann> devel would still have make webdocs for the package and make core docs for core
16:44:09 <abadger1999> what is make all the docs to you?
16:44:18 <samccann> what we have for 2.10 today
16:44:23 <samccann> 2.10 - all the docs
16:44:30 <abadger1999> ah.
16:44:43 <samccann> 3.x Ansible pkg docs (excludes roadmap, porting guides for core)
16:44:50 <abadger1999> So in my mind, I think that's just a special case of building the ansible package docs.
16:45:02 <samccann> core docs (excludes scenario and porting guides etc)
16:45:24 <abadger1999> which means the code will be there.
16:45:36 <abadger1999> It's just whether we make use of it for the special case or not.
16:45:48 <samccann> abadger1999  - I don't know how to make that a simple special case. It requires a third index.rst file and subsequent changes to match. aka 1/3 more complexity to what we have  in the pr now
16:46:11 <samccann> #link https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/73421
16:46:12 <github-linkbot> https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/73421 | open, created 2021-01-29T20:21:23Z by samccann: [WIP] Create separate core docs using 2 index files [WIP,affects_2.11,docs,needs_ci,needs_rebase,support:core,test]
16:46:17 <abadger1999> In 2.10, does it require a third index.rst file?
16:46:20 <samccann> since I keep talking about 'the pr the pr thepr)
16:46:43 <samccann> so my thought was we just edit stable-2.10 directly, not backport
16:47:12 <samccann> as the backport won't work cleanly, since stable-2.10 requires 2 different builds, all and package, and devel and future require package and core
16:47:46 <samccann> so we could have `make webdocs` be the all docs, `make pgk-docs` be Ansible pkg, and `make-coredocs` be core
16:48:13 <samccann> Then we only 'backport' the `make pgk-docs` to stable-2.10
16:49:05 <samccann> but yes, if we want both devel/future branches and stable-2.10 to support all three docsets, it requires 3 index.rst files nd the logic to select which one to use, what docs to include/exclude etc.
16:49:10 <abadger1999> I think we're getting to the point where we should probably talk about this tomorrow too.
16:49:16 <samccann> HAHAHA could be
16:49:24 <abadger1999> (as in... lots of permutations to think about and go over...)
16:49:27 <samccann> when is Ansible 3 releasing?
16:49:35 <acozine> oof, yeah, we've only got 10 minutes to go for today
16:50:18 <abadger1999> I'm going to try to info the three scenarios before we move on, though.
16:50:29 <abadger1999> #info three docs scenarios we have to build
16:50:59 <abadger1999> #info scenario 1: all the docs: ansible-2.10 docs. No equivalent ansible-base docs go with this.
16:51:37 <abadger1999> #info scenario2: Ansible 3.x docs (excludes roadmap and porting guides that are targetting ansible-base/core)
16:52:22 <abadger1999> #info scenario 3: ansible-core 2.11+ docs. (excludes scenario guides and porting guides targetting the ansible package)
16:52:48 <abadger1999> I'll try to think about that tonight so we're better prepared for tomorrow.
16:52:59 <samccann> cool thanks!
16:53:38 <acozine> okay, time for open floor
16:53:45 <acozine> #topic open floor
16:53:55 <acozine> anyone can bring up anything now
16:54:03 <acozine> PR or issue we should look at
16:54:18 <acozine> idea or comment to consider
16:54:32 <baptistemm> nope for me
16:54:35 <abadger1999> I have one
16:54:43 <acozine> question about the documentation or any of the mechanics of building it
16:54:46 <abadger1999> ansible-4 roadmap is ready for review and merge:  https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/73465
16:54:47 <github-linkbot> https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/73465 | open, created 2021-02-03T18:57:04Z by abadger: Ansible 4 roadmap [affects_2.11,core_review,docs,has_issue,support:core]
16:55:09 <acozine> excellent, thanks abadger1999
16:55:10 <abadger1999> samccann: Oh, you asked earlier when ansible-3 is releasing.  That would be next week.
16:55:29 <abadger1999> rc1 today.  final next week.
16:55:32 <acozine> do you want us to wait for all the requested reviews to come in?
16:55:38 <acozine> on 73465?
16:55:54 <abadger1999> acozine: nope.  Just docs team review.
16:56:01 <abadger1999> which is you folks :-)
16:56:24 <acozine> cool, I'll take a look and either merge or put comments after the meeting
16:56:53 <acozine> what's the status of the Docs Breadcrumbs PR felixfontein opened?
16:57:03 * acozine digs for a link . . .
16:57:12 <abadger1999> I've been working on reviewing and enhancing hte routing PR since last week.
16:57:28 <abadger1999> The breadcrumbs PR is next on my list to review after that.
16:57:31 <felixfontein> https://github.com/ansible-community/antsibull/pull/240
16:57:32 <github-linkbot> https://github.com/ansible-community/antsibull/pull/240 | open, created 2021-01-17T13:56:50Z by felixfontein: Add breadcrumbs to collection index, plugin indexes etc., and add namespace indexes [bug,enhancement]
16:57:45 <felixfontein> I think it's rather done, but abadger1999 needs to look over it once more
16:57:48 <acozine> fantastic, thanks abadger1999 felixfontein
16:57:48 <abadger1999> I took a preliminary look at both but only dug deeper into routing so far.
16:58:15 <abadger1999> felixfontein: btw, are the changes I pushed to the routing PR so far good for you?
16:58:22 <acozine> apparently we have some broken links elsewhere on ansible.com that could usefully point to namespace-level pages once we have them
16:58:42 <abadger1999> <nod>
16:58:44 <abadger1999> Okay.
16:58:53 <felixfontein> abadger1999: yes, I added another commit to fix a small problem, now they're good
16:59:00 <abadger1999> Cool.
16:59:11 * abadger1999 pulls the latest
16:59:53 <felixfontein> or more precisely, with the current version of the PR (when the other PRs are merged in), my docsite build still looks as before
16:59:53 <acozine> awesome, thanks for both the work and the update
17:01:06 <sommersoft> acozine & samccann were already tagged during review, but would love docs team input on this to help vector outcome: https://github.com/ansible/ansibullbot/pull/1505
17:01:06 <github-linkbot> https://github.com/ansible/ansibullbot/pull/1505 | open, created 2021-02-06T14:45:20Z by sommersoft: [WIP] Classify/Label PRs That Are Docs Only
17:01:42 <acozine> sommersoft: thanks for the link, I'll take a look
17:02:17 <acozine> when the workload gets large, my GitHub notifications backlog gets a little unwieldy, so bringing things to this meeting is the best way to help them float to the surface
17:03:00 <sommersoft> understand that, entirely. i def don't want to come across as nagging. :D
17:03:26 <acozine> heh, no worries
17:03:34 <acozine> nagging exists for a reason
17:04:06 <acozine> last call for today: PRs, issues, ideas, suggestions, comments, questions?
17:04:15 <baptistemm> nope
17:04:56 <acozine> agenda items always welcome - anyone can add them to https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/579
17:05:12 <acozine> all right, hearing none, we'll talk next week, folks!
17:05:22 <felixfontein> sounds good :)
17:05:29 <acozine> thanks abadger1999 baptistemm dericcrago felixfontein jlouthan lmodemal samccann sommersoft tadeboro
17:05:30 <felixfontein> oh, maybe a quick advertisement
17:05:40 <acozine> oh, excellent
17:05:45 <acozine> what for felixfontein?
17:06:14 <felixfontein> I have a PR for allowing to announce new roles and playbooks also in the Ansible combined changelog: https://github.com/ansible-community/antsibull/pull/248
17:06:15 <github-linkbot> https://github.com/ansible-community/antsibull/pull/248 | open, created 2021-01-30T20:51:25Z by felixfontein: Support object (role, playbook) announcements in combined changelog
17:07:01 <felixfontein> it looks as follows: https://gist.github.com/felixfontein/53690109e071301692c1d7447e112eaf#new-roles (see section `New Roles`)
17:07:32 <felixfontein> i.e. after New Plugins, New Modules, comes New Roles (and between New Playbooks if there are any)
17:07:42 <acozine> looks nice
17:07:54 <acozine> though the copyeditor in me wants to alphabetize that list . . .
17:08:17 <acozine> New Modules, then New Playbooks, New Plugins, New Roles
17:08:42 <acozine> I think this is a good way to get visibility for new content
17:08:54 <felixfontein> the order New Plugins / New Modules comes from the 'old' ansible changelog IIRC
17:08:57 <samccann> longer term, I wonder if we need to group them  together.  so today, I have to go to each category to see 'what's new in foo collection'
17:09:22 <samccann> vs just go to 'foo collection' and it starts with new plugins, new roles etc etc
17:09:29 <felixfontein> samccann: true. but then, you can also go directly to foo collection's changelog and look there :)
17:09:52 <samccann> yeah just not sure which is the better appraoch for an Ansible pkg user
17:10:22 <felixfontein> I think we had both versions for the 2.10.0 changelog, and decided for this one
17:10:40 <felixfontein> on the basis that usually users are more interested in a section, than in a collection
17:10:44 <felixfontein> (IIRC)
17:10:47 <samccann> ok cool. We should keep it that way until/unless we get pushback it's not working
17:11:21 <felixfontein> yep. we could also have two changelogs, one grouped by section, one by collection, so everyone can use what they want ;)
17:11:37 <felixfontein> (that would increase code complexity though...)
17:11:55 <acozine> yeah, I think I'd probably look at the New Stuff headings out of curiosity but I might not look at a collection just to see if anything was new, unless it was one I used A LOT
17:12:37 <acozine> samccann: if it ain't broke, don't fix it?
17:12:39 <acozine> +1
17:13:38 <acozine> all right, docs team will look at all mentioned PRs before next week
17:13:45 <acozine> thanks again everybody!
17:13:57 <acozine> chat welcome in the channel at all times
17:14:08 <acozine> next official meeting in one week
17:14:19 <acozine> #endmeeting