Open Stack

Again, to make myself more clear ... the parser that I am writing is based
on a few logical blocks:

1.

.. code-block:: console (is great!)
        $|# echo "Defines if its run as root or normal user
.. code-block:: end (so I dont have to write a linter and gives a logical
searching end syntax for a given code block!)

2.

$|# can easily be parsed by string match and replace with the command or su
-||sudo ...

3.

For ini/conf/apache or anything else but console its not a direct BASH
command and this logic then invokes another algorithm which parses the
configuration files in the right order.

I have been working on this quite a bit and would be really happy if we try
not to change it for the scope of this release since I would also have to
update the entire installation guides and the project-specific installation
guides.

If still we believe that there needs to be a change then we should discuss
it and finalize one syntax for atleast the scope of two releases or more.
IMHO this change is not really necessary (the one proposed in the earlier
emails in this thread) and there are no real technical disadvantages as I
have been studying the install guides syntax with such questions and
philosophical perspectives and point of views since the last OpenStack
summit, especially the design session of installation guides.

I hope I am clear with my arguments.

Regards,
Pranav

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Pranav Salunke <dguitarbite at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I would like to keep these changes on hold as I am writing a parser which
> parses these code-blocks to BASH for automating testing of install guides.
> Could we hold on to the current structure for a couple of weeks? As I have
> to edit/change a few things in install guides too for the same.
>
> Pranav
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-07-06 00:05, Lana Brindley wrote:
>> > Ah, this looks great!
>> >
>> > Andreas: how easy is it to install this extension? Will it break things?
>>
>> Installation:
>>
>> It needs to be added to global-requirements, to local test-requirements
>> for each repo and to each conf.py.
>>
>> So, small changes - but lots of them...
>>
>> And then RST files need to use it.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> >
>> > Lana
>> >
>> > On 06/07/16 05:26, Ronald Bradford wrote:
>> >> I tested the demo and highlighting of code conveniently excludes
>> prompts (achieved via css syntax).
>> >> It is certainly a plus to be able to cut/paste code blocks more easily.
>> >>
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> Ronald Bradford
>> >>
>> >> Web Site: http://ronaldbradford.com <http://ronaldbradford.com/>
>> >> LinkedIn:  http://www.linkedin.com/in/ronaldbradford
>> >> Twitter:    @RonaldBradford <http://twitter.com/ronaldbradford>
>> >> Skype:     RonaldBradford
>> >> GTalk:     Ronald.Bradford
>> >> IRC:         rbradfor
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Adrien Cunin <adrien at adriencunin.fr
>> <mailto:adrien at adriencunin.fr>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>     Hi,
>> >>
>> >>     From what I can see we usually use
>> >>
>> >>       .. code-block:: console
>> >>
>> >>     or
>> >>
>> >>       .. code-block:: shell-session
>> >>
>> >>     (which actually are the same)
>> >>
>> >>     to show commands that are to be executed by the user such as
>> >>
>> >>       # apt-get install foo
>> >>       # echo 1 > bar
>> >>
>> >>     The main issue, and the reason I started looking into this, is
>> that the
>> >>     html output doesn't make it easy to select commands (for
>> copy/pasting
>> >>     typically) without the prompt.
>> >>
>> >>     Turns out there is a Sphinx extension to do just this:
>> >>     https://github.com/sbrunner/sphinx-prompt
>> >>
>> >>     With this extension, the following
>> >>
>> >>       .. prompt:: bash #
>> >>
>> >>          apt-get install foo
>> >>          echo 1 > bar
>> >>
>> >>     will have the expected result.
>> >>     That is: looks similar to the previous version, but one can easily
>> >>     select commands without the prompt.
>> >>
>> >>     Does it sound like a good idea?
>> >>
>> >>     We'd need first to enable the Sphinx extension wherever we use
>> Sphinx.
>> >>     Does that actually require to patch each git repository that
>> contains
>> >>     documentation or do we have another way of doing it globally?
>> >>     Then, documentations should start using ".. prompt:: bash" instead
>> of
>> >>     ".. code-block:: console" when appropriate - the change could be
>> >>     automated or not.
>> >>
>> >>     Adrien
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     _______________________________________________
>> >>     OpenStack-docs mailing list
>> >>     OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org <mailto:
>> OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org>
>> >>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OpenStack-docs mailing list
>> >> OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org
>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>  Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi
>>   SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
>>    GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
>>        HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
>>     GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-docs mailing list
>> OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20160706/b064678f/attachment.html>