Open Stack

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Anne Gentle <annegentle at justwriteclick.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Ildikó Váncsa <ildiko.vancsa at ericsson.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  Hi All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I missed the original thread with the registration to this list, so I
>> will try to summarize my thoughts without history.
>>
>>
>>
>> First of all, I support the idea of generating the API Reference from the
>> source code as that is the most up to date source of information. On the
>> other hand it makes much easier not just to create the exact document, but
>> keep it up to date, which is unfortunately not true for some of the
>> projects that have their API guide in OpenStack Manuals.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for the format and placement, I think it can be an experimental
>> process as it is described in the corresponding blueprint. As there are
>> still projects, which have their API documentation in the project tree it
>> shows that it is a viable solution too to put more responsibility on the
>> project teams as opposed to leaving all on the documentation team, which
>> has limited resources compared to the size of OpenStack at the moment.
>>
>>
>>
>> As I mentioned the documentation, which lives together with the code, it
>> raised a question for me. The API versioning is not always in line with the
>> OpenStack releases neither with the changes on the API. As not every
>> project uses micro versioning or any kind of markup, which shows the
>> changes, it can mean that the v2 version of an API contains less endpoints
>> in let’s Juno, than in Kilo. If we document and update the API Reference
>> based only on API versions, then we miss to capture the difference between
>> the functionality covered in the different OpenStack releases. In case of
>> those projects, which maintains their documentation together with the code
>> base this should not be an issue, as the documentation is frozen on the
>> stable branches, when those are cut from master. What do you think about
>> this aspect? Is there a plan to address this issue too?
>>
>
> Great point Ildiko. I need to be clear in the spec that the intent is to
> have a "Kilo" Dev Guide, a "Juno" Dev Guide, probably just maintaining 2
> releases at a time (rather than the 3 that are security-supported). I think
> it'll have to lag a release behind, so that Dev Guides are only available
> for already-released services.
>

> To keep the scope sane, I likely will start with Images v2.x API only. I'm
> reaching out to that team to see if that's feasible.
>
> So it's not about the projects microversioning each resource call
> necessarily but about documenting "what can I do with a Juno-based cloud as
> an app dev" -- and document ways to self-discover that also. In your case,
> how would I know what calls are available in Juno, use stable branches? I
> guess I point the autodoc tool at the stable branch. Hm, this might mean
> some backported strings.
>

So I woke up this morning and realized, there's no way we should be using
stable/release branches to generate docs. The reviewers are fewer for those
branches and less likely to know anything about API changes and uses.

That makes me realize we need to stay with the master branch for
auto-generation. It also means that each call _will_ need to indicate which
release it's intended for.

I'm still going to different meetings, such as the Nova API meeting, and
reaching out to PTLs and API liaisons to continue to shape the spec.

Another area I need to add to the spec is using gabbi to test requests and
responses. I'll also be writing up guidelines for docs within the API
working group for reviewers to have as a rubric.

Keep asking questions, it's helping with the design effort.
Anne


>
> Each resource should have some indicator in the docs whether it's
> available on Juno or Kilo, also. That's what's tougher for some APIs than
> others, right?
>
> I really want to get the proof-of-concept robust enough to matter, so
> thanks for bringing up the versioning implications.
>
> Anne
>
>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Ildiko
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-docs mailing list
>> OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/20150508/bf2e06f3/attachment.html>