[yt-dev] Move docs back into repo?

Sat Jan 25 07:06:42 PST 2014

I am +1 for moving the docs into the main repo via copy and making the old
repo visible but read-only.

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> This discussion about building the docs is definitely worth having, but I
> think it is orthogonal to the question of whether to move the docs back
> into the source.  How about we move the build discussion to a separate
> thread and focus here on where the docs should live?
>
> So as far as I can tell, the only argument against merging docs into the
> source is the loss of history.  What if we keep yt-doc around and make it
> read-only, so it can serve as an archive of the change history?  It seems
> to me that the only people who would benefit from having doc history are
> developers of the docs and not really the readers.  My proposal seems like
> it would serve any needs we might have regarding keeping the doc history.
>  What do people think about this?
>
> Britton
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I agree.  The ReadTheDocs version is mostly useful for doing a quick docs
>> build to see what an addition to the docs look like.  I was suggesting
>> making the ReadTheDocs build mode more prominent since it allows quick
>> iteration on the docs if one is only modifying the contents of an .rst file.
>>
>> I don't think local docs builds or the ReadTheDocs build are particularly
>> useful for actual reference.  The former because it takes about a half
>> hour to generate a full docs build and the latter because of the lack of
>> API docs, recipe results, and evaluated notebooks.
>>
>> Luckily, there is a full docs build at yt-project.org/docs/dev that is
>> fully built and updated whenever the docs change.  I think the availability
>> of the dev docs build obviates a lot of the need to build the docs locally
>> and completely supplants ReadTheDocs.  In fact, I'd be for permanently
>> redirecting our ReadTheDocs page to the dev docs build.
>>
>> That said, there definitely is a potential barrier for adding a new
>> notebook or recipe, as a quick example, since notebooks and cookbooks
>> are only built in the full build.
>>
>> I don't think that is a big problem in practice, since some of us keep
>> local docs builds that we can use to test new additions and then report
>> issues during the docs PR process.
>>
>> If anyone is curious about doing a full docs build, there are
>> instructions in the development section of the docs:
>> http://yt-project.org/docs/dev/developing/building_the_docs.html
>>
>> On Friday, January 24, 2014, j s oishi <jsoishi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I know you agree asking Matt, but I personally find the read the docs
>>> version to be nearly useless. Because it doesn't include the api docs, it
>>> seems like every time I go looking for something, it isn't there. Worse,
>>> there is no placeholder saying that they are incomplete. If you want an
>>> example of what I mean, try looking in the Dev docs for what data objects
>>> yt has. The "available objects" page gives a list, with a link to see more
>>> info, like how to instantiate them. Follow that link on read the docs, and
>>> it goes to a page that should have the api info but doesn't, and instead
>>> gives a link *back* to the available objects page.
>>>
>>> J
>>> On Jan 24, 2014 8:33 PM, "Nathan Goldbaum" <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 24, 2014, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> > 1) Dependencies.  Right now, there is a non-trivial amount of work
>>> >> > required
>>> >> > to build the docs in full (or even in part).  It isn't a matter of
>>> just
>>> >> > going into docs and typing `make html` with a vanilla yt
>>> installation.
>>> >> > If
>>> >> > you want to build all of the notebooks, you need extra libraries,
>>> some
>>> >> > of
>>> >> > them taking a decent amount of time to install.  Pandocs
>>> installation is
>>> >> > somewhat tricky (homebrew it isn't bad, but with macports, it is
>>> very
>>> >> > problematic), and I recall a lot of extra steps.  Anyway, if we're
>>> going
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > package the docs with code, should we include all of the docs
>>> >> > dependencies
>>> >> > in the yt installer?  Or just leave it to individuals to do this on
>>> >> > their
>>> >> > own?
>>> >>
>>> >> Leave it to individuals, and make it a safe failure if the deps aren't
>>> >> there.
>>> >>
>>> >> I mean, if we're relying on notebooks, the failsafe for not being able
>>> >> to turn them into docs is ... to run them in the notebook.  Right?
>>> >>
>>> > Part of the reason I bring this up is, if one is still unable to build
>>> the
>>> > docs, then there is still a major hurdle to including documentation in
>>> PRs.
>>> > In fact, last time I submitted a change to the docs, I could not build
>>> the
>>> > docs because of all of the dependencies, so I just *hoped* that it
>>> rendered
>>> > OK before submission.  Clearly not an ideal situation.
>>>
>>> Agreed.  I actually don't know what to do about this.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Installing some of the dependencies, like SZPack or pandocs, is a
>>> pain.  So
>>> > I'd vote for following Nathan's advice to turn off building the api and
>>> > notebook builds by default with the "readthedocs" option.
>>>
>>> Okay.
>>>
>>> If we could get rid of pandoc as a dep, I think we'd be a lot further
>>> along.  I don't know how realistic that is.  SZPack I am much less
>>> concerned about.
>>>
>>>
>>> That would mean we'd need to abandon the notebooks -- nbconvert relies
>>> on pandoc heavily.  Needless to say, I's be strongly -1 on doing that.
>>>
>>> Matt, what do you think about making the ReadTheDocs build the default?
>>>
>>> In any case, ReadTheDocs is always there and is mentioned in the docs
>>> section on how to build the docs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 2) By my count, yt-docs (unbuilt) takes 41MB of space, with yt-hg
>>> taking
>>> >> > 113MB of space, so I think this is not going to break the bank to
>>> move
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > docs into the yt repo, as long as we continue to do mostly
>>> dynamically
>>> >> > generated images/movies/content.  If we start tracking lots of media
>>> >> > files,
>>> >> > it could bulk pretty fast.
>>> >>
>>> >> I agree, and I am very nervous about that.  When you say it takes 41MB
>>> >> of space, are you counting the .hg directory?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Yes, I was including the .hg directory.  Without the .hg directory
>>> yt-doc is
>>> > 29MB, whereas yt-hg is 59MB, so it does add 50% to the size of the
>>> resulting
>>> > output.
>>>
>>> I am surprised we have 29MB of just stuff, without version history.  Hm.
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 3) What happens to the history of the docs in mercurial if we move
>>> them
>>> >> > into
>>> >> > the yt source repo?  Does it start everything at ground zero?  Or
>>> do we
>>> >> > retain the history of commits from the yt-doc repo?
>>> >>
>>> >> My proposal was to simply import them en masse without retaining the
>>> >> history, but not to delete the old repository.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I guess that is OK, but it's too bad those old commits will be lost.
>>>  There
>>> > was some valuable information that got removed during the docs
>>> refactor a
>>> > few months ago, which it
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140125/ffb9f51b/attachment.htm>