Open Stack

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Anne Gentle" <annegentle at justwriteclick.com>
> > To: "Diane Fleming" <diane.fleming at rackspace.com>
> > Cc: "Steve Gordon" <sgordon at redhat.com>,
> openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 3:36:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Openstack-docs] Common content strategy?
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Diane Fleming
> > <diane.fleming at rackspace.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > >
> > > Good points.
> > >
> > > I have no objections to you moving shared content into the "common"
> > > directory.
> > >
> > > I will move my "common" files into common this afternoon. (The CLI
> guide
> > > is going away - I just wanted it to build successfully until I got the
> end
> > > and admin user guides sorted out - so I sources files for the CLI guide
> > > from the user guide.)
> > >
> > > Once I move my files, you can continue moving anything else that
> should go
> > > there as you see fit!
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > > Diane
> > > ----------------------------------------------
> > > Diane Fleming
> > > Software Developer II - US
> > >
> > > diane.fleming at rackspace.com
> > > Cell  512.323.6799
> > > Office 512.874.1260
> > > Skype drfleming0227
> > > Google-plus diane.fleming at gmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/31/13 1:20 PM, "Steve Gordon" <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hi all,
> > > >
> > > >In the lead up to the Grizzly release I made a handful of commits to
> move
> > > >shared content into the common directory, where it was not already
> there.
> > > >This had the effect of:
> > > >
> > > >- Making it more obvious which content was actually shared (in one
> case I
> > > >even found a file inside the openstack-compute-admin folder that was
> no
> > > >longer used in that guide at all, but was used by others).
> > >
> >
> > Great find. Would you mind another search round for files not being used
> > anywhere at all and patching to remove those?
>
> Yes I will look into this further, obviously I want to be very sure
> something isn't included from somewhere before removing it :).
>
> > > >- Making it easier for me to transform/build with Publican (an
> admittedly
> > > >selfish reason but listing for completeness :)).
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > Sure, good reason!
> >
> >
> > > >Looking at the state of the repository as it stands today I have
> noticed
> > > >that a few instances of the following have been creeping back in as a
> > > >result of the restructuring efforts:
> > > >
> > > >- Content that has become common (linked in to multiple guides) but
> not
> > > >been moved to a location beneath the "common" folder (I'm ignoring
> here
> > > >the case where the cli-guide now largely includes content from the
> > > >user-guide folder as I believe the cli-guide is effectively now part
> of
> > > >the user-guide effort?).
> > >
> >
> > Yep, Diane's on it.
> >
> >
> > >  >- Content in the "common" folder that itself links in content from
> other
> > > >guides - effectively resulting in (1).
> > > >
> > > >I was wondering whether there are any objections to me continuing to
> > > >submit patches to move common content falling into these categories
> into
> > > >common (and of course update the relevant xi:includes)? There are by
> no
> > > >means a lot of these but I feel like it's probably easier to keep on
> top
> > > >of them as they come to light rather than waiting - that is if others
> > > >agree it's not problematic for me to be doing this. I was also
> wondering
> > > >if there might be a need to define a deeper taxonomy for content under
> > > >the "common" folder?
> > >
> >
> > No objections at all, I love this cleanup effort.
> >
> > For a deeper taxonomy, do you mean you'll put more folders in to help
> show
> > where it's reused? Or some file renaming? Let me know your thoughts there
> > so when I review I know what the taxonomy will be.
>
> This was really an open-ended question. At the moment *most* of the files
> in there are named such that they are prefixed by the name of the
> project/technology they relate to, simply applying this consistently might
> be enough to tidy things up rather than going into any additional nesting
> of folders etc.
>
>
Big plus 1 from me for more consistency in naming. I keep meaning to do
that clean up but I think I'll focus on doc bugs if you can work on a
naming cleanup.

Thanks!
Anne


> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>



-- 
Anne Gentle
annegentle at justwriteclick.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20130801/adeacb7f/attachment.html>