14:00:56 #startmeeting Docs Project Meeting - Agenda: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs_Project_meetings 14:00:56 Meeting started Mon Aug 15 14:00:56 2016 UTC. The chair is randomuser. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:56 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 14:00:56 The meeting name has been set to 'docs_project_meeting_-_agenda:_https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/docs_project_meetings' 14:00:56 #meetingname Fedora Docs 14:00:56 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_docs' 14:00:56 #topic Roll Call 14:01:03 * Capesteve waves 14:02:37 * jhradilek waves too. 14:02:41 .hello bex 14:02:42 bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' 14:03:00 * pbokoc 14:03:02 Now, depending on who's here and their interest level, it might be a good idea to spend the meeting discussing progress and plans for pintail 14:03:14 +1 14:03:32 and eschew the agenda completely 14:04:22 perhaps it is worth editing the standard agenda too /me ducks 14:05:10 go for it 14:06:09 okay, enough rolls 14:06:20 #topic pintail planning 14:06:27 #link https://pagure.io/docs-fp-o/issues 14:06:42 alright, let's start at the top 14:07:42 the wjmoreno and mayorga took over the package review for pintail 14:07:55 williamjmorenor++ 14:07:55 randomuser: Karma for williamjmorenor changed to 2 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 14:07:59 mayorga++ 14:07:59 randomuser: Karma for mayorga changed to 3 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 14:08:12 and, issue updated 14:08:27 .hello dhanvi 14:08:28 c0mrad3: dhanvi 'Tummala Dhanvi' 14:08:56 next up is editing existing books to work with pintail - i think we need more detail in this issue 14:10:19 can someone try to build the books with pintail and update the issue ? 14:10:35 I tried to build the install guide, iirc, before Flock 14:10:44 it would be best to have a checklist of things to use for each guide 14:10:46 there is a build bug in pintail regarding xml file requirements 14:10:48 The biggest issue is common content 14:11:07 if we convert to asciidoc straight out we should avoid that 14:11:13 which will just leave us with the common content problem 14:11:28 I am wondering if we can solve common content with git-submodules or git-subtrees 14:11:32 as in the trademark ownership and legal boilerplate? 14:11:36 it is little changed content so it should work well with those 14:11:56 bexelbie, i think that would add more workflow complexity than we want 14:12:08 It also will not deal with stuff like $FedoraVersion 14:12:23 randomuser, I don't think so ... as I believe it is "automagical" from a non-common content updater perspective 14:12:56 * randomuser shrugs 14:13:04 /me is here 14:13:24 /me is with shaunm at gnome docs sprint 14:13:27 Could we define release specific versions in common content and peg that to the branches? 14:13:31 I'm not conversant on submodules or subtrees, so I assume that it would be a blocker for others 14:13:38 assuming a sub-module style usage 14:13:46 I have done some reading .. which makes me dangerous 14:14:05 the specific issue is that you want this to be content that is not likely to change often while working on the rest of the repository 14:14:21 and apparently you tie a specific git has to be checked out when you clone the main repository 14:14:29 then we can just symlink it ... or so the theory goes 14:14:33 not symlink - sorry 14:14:36 then we can just use it 14:14:52 imo we should stop representing articles as being appropriate for $version and simply represent them as "current" 14:15:16 I believe gnome does tagging for versioning .. so the text stays generic but you can know what is good for which version 14:15:24 apparently they can also use this for audit before a release 14:15:30 but I know nothing of the details 14:15:56 bexelbie: you mean http://projectmallard.org/1.0/mal_info_revision 14:16:35 pkovar, maybe?? It was from a hallway-convo with Kat at Flock 14:16:47 can you take this as an action item to flesh out the idea, bexelbie, or shall we move on to the next issue? 14:17:00 bexelbie: certainly ;) 14:17:06 randomuser, I'll try to build a POC that shows how to do the common content 14:17:12 is that what you mean randomuser ? 14:17:34 something that generally addresses the problem of building our existing books with pintail 14:17:57 I am happy to do that too ... but I don't have the cycles (and possibly knowledge) to fix the pintail XML bug 14:18:03 * bexelbie goes to get issue # 14:18:13 if it happens that you come back with a recommendation to do asciidoc conversion and ignore common content, so be it 14:18:15 https://github.com/projectmallard/pintail/issues/20 14:18:21 ok 14:18:31 I will also try to pin down ShaunM for help when he is back from Guadec 14:18:47 I am going to Write The Docs Europe (but I don't think he is) so I may try to find some outside parties who want to hack on tools there 14:19:25 #action bexelbie to develop a POC around a pintail build with common content or come back with a list of failure points cleanly documented 14:19:28 hm... i wonder if that specific DTD declaration is required in that section? perhaps we could just change it to one pintail doesn't complain about 14:19:47 From messing with it, I got the impression it was any DTD 14:19:54 hm 14:19:55 I think I did some hacking and slashing to get to that point 14:20:02 but I will revisit it 14:20:48 This also begs the question of if we should fix publishing for our current books - as raised at Flock 14:21:05 (though we still need a process/POC and common content regardless) 14:21:42 the info about what needs to be done to the current guides to publish them with pintail will inform the answer to that question 14:22:00 cool 14:22:15 please take https://pagure.io/docs-fp-o/issue/2 bexelbie, it doesn't know your name yet 14:22:32 * bexelbie tries not to put his name in public places :P 14:22:55 heh 14:23:17 i think i was looking for 'bexelbie' 14:23:22 okay, #3 14:23:38 it's a long story .. like TOS to TNG Klingons 14:23:45 this is an sgilson pet topic, but he has not engaged 14:24:23 Do we consider development of an overarching content model to be immediately actionable without him? 14:24:58 I believe we have to step back and define our new content model and not worry about conversion ... once we know the endpoint we can make a decision about conversion 14:25:50 I have to admit I wasn't paying too much attention to this lately, so ignore me if it is just my ignorance, but what is the "overarching content model" supposed to be? 14:25:55 I'm afraid that theorizing about the content model will consume manhours that could be spent on implementation 14:26:07 I have ideas about topics, but I don't know that I have the cycles to write them up this week. Is there someone else who wants to take action on this? Otherwise I would propose we table it and wait until we know what the tool is going to do to us with the other books. 14:26:38 s/other/existing/ 14:26:44 jhradilek, some kind of strategy for deciding what we should write about and how we should structure the relationships between those choices 14:27:30 I am having hard time imagining what it could look like. 14:27:36 we're more ad-hoc now, and for the time being it might be best to accept that and move past what could be an ideological roadblock 14:28:09 jhradilek, well, erm... sgilson has a vision 14:29:13 so... any objections to closing 'Insufficient Data' and perhaps revisiting down the road? 14:29:22 for info, this was mentioned by pfrields at Flock: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/392172/84893614/ 14:29:43 it is keywords searched for with "fedora how to" ... this could show one way of determing what to write 14:30:16 i like it 14:30:49 "fedora how to wear" :D 14:30:49 How about we mark the ticket low priority and put that link in it 14:30:52 dibs on that one 14:31:19 pbokoc: Too late: http://www.wikihow.com/Wear-a-Fedora 14:31:31 * stickster notes there are definitely some garbage results in there, but lots of good stuff too 14:32:04 yeah, it seems like a pretty good list 14:32:51 * a2batic is here 14:35:34 sorry, got a call 14:37:22 there's not a priority thing 14:37:32 in pagure, it's either an issue or it is not 14:38:33 randomuser, weird, the issue list has a priority column 14:38:34 heh 14:39:09 i think you set up priority attributes of tags at a project level 14:39:16 will revisit later 14:39:27 #4 looks long term, hm 14:40:04 #link https://pagure.io/documentation-guide/branch/new-workflow 14:40:44 we've done some work on this, but it's ironically unpublished 14:41:04 Not true! 14:41:16 #chair zoglesby 14:41:16 Current chairs: randomuser zoglesby 14:41:29 do continue 14:41:30 Its published to https://pagure.io/docs/docs-fp-o/ with pintail 14:41:53 ah, very good 14:41:56 I have updated the repo to support priorities 14:42:24 zoglesby, can you discuss where we are on this topic, and what remains, while I go afk for 96 seconds? 14:43:53 This is very much a work as we go issue, as we flesh out details on issues, workflows, etc, we need to document them in that repo 14:44:36 I don't expect this item to be done until we have a finished workflow, but we should be agile with this and publish early and often. 14:44:58 Doing so will allow everyone to follow along 14:45:59 +1 I'll try to put my notes there 14:46:00 Also, everything that is included as of now is very rough and should be edited, nothing is done or locked in at this point. 14:46:24 A lot of that was stream of consciousness from myself and randomuser 14:47:19 that's exactly the point I was going to make here - the documentation guide, especially now, should be a living document that we're all aware of and maintaining 14:48:05 oh, i should have been changing the topic as we discuss each issue 14:48:40 just a little time left, let's jump to #7 14:48:58 #topic pagure issue #7: create pintail config to build site 14:49:18 this does exist, but I haven't done a build recently 14:49:57 has anyone else? can we consider this initially done, and also WIP indefinitely? 14:50:11 +1 for initially done 14:50:18 and mark closed as it is WIP 14:51:10 I am okay with that 14:51:58 making it so 14:52:59 #topic pagure#12 14:52:59 Set up a staging environment for new pintail instance 14:53:11 I'm going to work on this one this week 14:53:43 we should have or can get a couple instances to play with, or jenkins, or poor man's ci, or whatever is available 14:54:28 ci integration with pagure isn't a thing yet, i think, but we can still get a proof of concept going 14:55:07 +1 14:55:41 with elasticsearch even 14:56:13 i don't have more detailed plans off the cuff though 14:56:19 #topic Open Floor 14:57:35 That reminds me that I need to check in a change to the pintail config to disable elasticsearch for now, or it will fail to build 14:57:52 Unless you install elasticsearch locally that is 14:57:59 * randomuser nods 14:58:22 what about maintaining a branch for local testing, and a separate branch for use in the build environment? 14:59:38 Well until we have elasticsearch on anything it makes no diff 14:59:58 fair enough 15:00:10 OK, we're out of time now 15:00:16 see you around 15:00:19 #endmeeting