[yt-dev] Move docs back into repo?

Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 25 10:11:19 PST 2014 

+1 on inclusion via a copy.


On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Brian O'Shea <bwoshea at gmail.com> wrote:

> That seems very sensible.  +1.
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:40 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e7e90b9d/attachment.html>

More information about the yt-dev mailing list