Open Stack

Hi all,
I wanted to circle back on these items. I've been in touch with the PTLs
and their teams, I wrote to the dev list, then I thought some more, and it
has taken a while.

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Anne Gentle
<annegentle at justwriteclick.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Tom Fifield <tom at openstack.org> wrote:
>
>> On 02/08/13 06:43, Anne Gentle wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Tom Fifield <tom at openstack.org
>> > <mailto:tom at openstack.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     > The titles that we'll release Oct 17th, regardless of number of
>> >     bugs, are:
>> >     >
>> >     >  - Compute Administration Guide (contains Identity and Images)
>> >
>> >
>> >     I disagree with releasing inaccurate information, and would instead
>> opt
>> >     for incomplete documentation. Very important distinctions in types
>> of
>> >     bugs - those that denote something missing and those that denote
>> >     something is wrong.
>> >
>> >     Then, I believe that just verifying the accuracy of the information
>> in
>> >     the Compute Administration Guide (i.e. we don't have bugs for many
>> areas
>> >     that are potentially wrong) is going to take a lot of effort, and I
>> have
>> >     yet to see where this will come from.
>> >
>> >     My suggestion would be to focus on the documents that we can make
>> >     accurate prior to release and publish the 'full library' at a later
>> >     date.
>> >
>> >
>> > So nice to have you in our time zone Tom. :)
>> >
>> > I think the actual design layout will help us realize that "releases"
>> > will look different for Havana. We won't have that redesign for a few
>> > weeks, so we're talking abstractedly but have concrete views already
>> > cemented.
>> >
>> > I'm asserting that the only guides that we can ever guarantee to be
>> > synchronized with released code are install and config (automated). All
>> > others are released continuously. Yes it means inaccuracies may exist
>> > but bugs exist in the code too. We can certainly leave out entire
>> > sections or chapters if they're just too buggy.
>> >
>> > I don't think that there will be a Havana Compute Administration Guide
>> > on October 17th, there will be a "continuously published from master"
>> > Compute Administration Guide.
>> >
>> > The ownership is what concerns me -- Neutron "owns" their Networking
>> > Admin Guide, so does Cinder. Nova and Swift, not so much ownership. So
>> > are you proposing removal of Compute Admin Guide and Object Storage
>> > Admin Guide until owners step up? I can certainly consider that here.
>> >
>> > I think we agree -- its just that the full Havana library is just two
>> > books. The rest of the books are on the shelf with a published date on
>> > them. I hope the redesign will help users understand this.
>>
>> Using Jet Lag to advantage :)
>>
>> So yes - I am leaning towards 'not having' as a consideration.
>>
>>
>
> So here's where I'm at while mulling it over for a while... I don't think
> we get rid of the Admin Guide titles, yet. (Titles. Contents I can
> completely delete or move without a problem.) I think we delete contents
> until only accurate content is in them. But, we also need to have this
> conversation on the openstack-dev list. I started it here on openstack-docs
> but these are documents that belong to everyone and we need to expand our
> conversation. I'll get that post out Monday.
>

I got our release manager, Thierry Carrez's response to my post to the
openstack-dev mailing list as a good indicator that going to continuous
release for many books would be just fine. [1]

I also went to four team meetings to get input directly from the teams
themselves for these four titles:

 - Block Storage Service Administration Guide
 - Compute Administration Guide (contains Identity and Images)
 - Networking Administration Guide
 - Object Storage Administration Guide

I'll go through each in turn.

 - Block Storage Service Administration Guide
The team is fine with putting their config and install info into other
books, and that leaves only the "Managing Volumes" chapter in this title.
This patch does this reorg work: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40451/.
After that patch goes through, if we can find a home for "Managing
Volumes," perhaps in the Ops Guide, not sure yet, then we can eliminate
this separate book. Sorry that the patch has gotten a little large, it
wasn't my intent (to have that large of a patch). Hopefully this
explanation helps.

 - Compute Administration Guide (contains Identity and Images)

The nova team is also fine with whatever we as a doc team think is best.
Lots of trust there! :) We've done a lot of gutting of this guide, and it
still has some content that doesn't have a home. Specifically:
Overall architecture
Identity Management
Image Management
Networking with nova-network
System Administration
OpenStack Interfaces
Security Hardening
OpenStack Compute Automated Installations
Compute Tutorials
Troubleshooting

I think these can all find other homes, but I'm not exactly sure where yet.
The patch I refer to above does some of the moving as well.

 - Networking Administration Guide
This team is also fine with removing config information and placing it in
the Config Reference. However, this is one guide that I'm not convinced we
should completely eliminate. It contains use cases for configuration and a
high availability chapter and some plugin scenarios that aren't any where
else. It's possible the use cases and "Under the Hood" could go into the
Configuration Reference, but there are also advanced ops features like
logging, notifications, and quotas in this guide. The neutron doc bug is
used for 7 doc bugs, so compared to nova's 100+ doc bugs, is this guide
actually in okay shape to keep as its own book. It seems like it to me but
I want more input. What do you all think?

 - Object Storage Administration Guide
This team is fine with removal from openstack-manuals once all the info is
correctly placed. For example, Configuring Object Storage with the S3 API
needs to go to the Configuration Reference. Tom has a WIP patch going on
right now that scrapes their sample configs and puts them into tables,
thankfully getting rid of the raw.github.com links I had placed,
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/43032/. Thanks Tom!

These are the chapters and sections that need to find a new home:
OpenStack Object Storage Tutorials
Object Storage Monitoring

All this said, the remaining content of three Admin guides could be either:
the starting point for an OpenStack Administration Guide
 or
moved into the Operations Guide.

Nick and/or Nermina, are you willing to do a patch for review that brings
the remaining parts into an OpenStack Admin guide or is that too
"Frankendoc" (trying to revive dead parts to make a whole?) Or do these
final parts belong in the Operations Guide? We have about 2 and a half
weeks before Docs Boot Camp, seems like enough time to get a WIP patch to
see how it looks. Interested?

Thanks again for patience and all this analysis. I do realize I haven't
attended keystone and glance weekly meetings, but their portions are small
and I wanted to get this out now. I'll talk to them next.

Thanks,

Anne

1.
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-August/013352.html


>
> Also, soon we'll have more info about the redesign and we can revisit then
> again. Hopefully this week I'll have the draft redesign which fixes the
> problem with people reading outdated info because the release info is hard
> to find. (bug 1191447)
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+bug/1191447 This redesign
> may help us shape the title list as well.
>
>
>> I disagree that we should be publishing inaccurate information.
>> If we can't verify that it's OK, it shouldn't be on an official document
>> on openstack.org.
>>
>
> This statement is not one I can back or support. We need to be careful
> about throwing around words like "official" because there are a lot of
> grassroots efforts around docs, training, HA, and I do not want to squelch
> those efforts or discourage them in any way by raising the bar way too high
> for contributing to docs.openstack.org or api.openstack.org.  I can
> support statements like "we strive for accuracy and test as throughly as
> possible" but I cannot back anything strongly stated about "official"
> because the Board and the TC are still working through "what is core?" and
> other such important questions. Read more at
> http://robhirschfeld.com/2013/07/24/what-is-core-strawman/ if you want
> some background, it's important we all understand what we're working
> through as a community.
>
>
>>
>> What needs to happen, in my opinion, is a complete gutting of the
>> guides, and sections only added back in when they have been verified to
>> be technically accurate (potentially also copyedited, scoped and
>> structured ^_^). I disagree that just because something is 'continously
>> published' means that this step can be avoided.
>>
>>
> Gutting is happening now. I believe the Compute Admin Guide especially
> will be quite gutted.
>
> Hope this helps - thanks for keeping the feedback going and look for the
> discussion with the wider community this week.
> Anne
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Anne Gentle
> annegentle at justwriteclick.com
>



-- 
Anne Gentle
annegentle at justwriteclick.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20130821/ad568423/attachment.html>