• Senior Developer

    @Jurgen-Goedbloed said in Improve documentation:

    If you agree, then let me assemble the first pages. The wiki provides lots of information that is very usable, so that’s just copy/paste and reformat.

    Sounds great to me!

    From a practical point of view I will organize for you to have write/push access to the fog-docs repo - and everyone else who is keen to work on this (please send me a PM). Sure there is another way by forking that repo to your own account and sending in pull requests but that adds extra work for you and us and I don’t think that’s apropriate.


  • @Sebastian-Roth if you think a separate repo is better, than that’s fine for me and it is good to keep it under the fogproject. We can place release tags in that project and achieve the same goal.

    @Wayne-Workman yes let’s start small. From my experience with setting up Fog project as a sysadmin/network engineer I am interested in the following parts:

    • How does Fog work? A small introduction and a description of components and how it fits in the network. The last part is important for network admins to understand and support a fog installation in their network
    • Installation instructions on Debian and Redhat of a fog server and fog storage server
    • Managing fog (the Web UI)
    • Doing your first image capture/deployment
    • Reference of all configuration options

    Later we will have to discuss whether to include advanced options like exotic installs, FAQ, Troubleshooting although I think that the forums already play a great role in this and maybe also the wiki.

    If you agree, then let me assemble the first pages. The wiki provides lots of information that is very usable, so that’s just copy/paste and reformat.


  • At one point @Joe-Schmitt had shared a google doc and several people assisted outlining some documentation there. I can probably dig up the link.

    I guess we should know what ought to go into the new documentation. It’s easy to get carried away with all the details concerning Linux and all the open-source components that make up fog. We should control scope for the first effort, keeping the scope small.

    I might suggest adding some installation guides - many are already created in the wiki (some even have videos).

    A section on DHCP and ProxyDHCP - keeping it lightweight, just what you need to do to get going in the most common scenarios.

    I’d suggest a beginners guide to imaging. How to capture an image, how to deploy an image.

    Talk about the FOG Client, how to use it for domain joining.

    Past that, we can add to it as we need. Small steps.

  • Senior Developer

    @Jurgen-Goedbloed Sounds good, I just added you as a maintainer for https://readthedocs.org/projects/fogproject/ so you can also edit settings and such.

    As mentioned earlier I don’t agree that having documentation within the code repo will make things more clear. It would take a lot of effort and communication to make sure the state of the documentation in the code repo is always up to date (at least when we push for a next release). Ideally this is the case but we are so far from it that I guess this won’t work out.

    As a more flexible way we could have the documentation in a separate repo (which is already created) and tag states of the documentation with the exact same names that we use in the code repo (e.g. 1.5.9) when documentation is ready to go. Easy enough to synchronize but not as static as if we are bound to tagging code and docs at the exact same point.

    The current plan is to release one final last 1.5.10 version before we move on to 1.6.x version which has a new web UI and some new features that we are working on. I would hope that we can come up with a nice documentation for 1.5.10 some time after the release. Most of that documentation can be re-used for the upcoming 1.6.x stuff as well (beside the screenshots).

    @moderators @testers Who of you would like to put in a bit of time to help getting the documentation together?


  • I have played with sphinx/github and readthedocs.

    I have created an account at github: jgoedbloed. The github account is also used for readthedocs.

    If you look at my test project in github: https://github.com/jgoedbloed/docstest
    then you’ll see the ‘docs’ folder that contains all documentation (for now this is just a skeleton, no useful information to be found here).

    I have set up a readdthedocs account https://jgoedbloed-docstest.readthedocs.io/en/1.1/ and this compiles from the github project and creates the html documentation.

    As @JJ-Fullmer states: the nice thing of keeping the docs inside the fogproject source tree is that you can use versions and that each version gets it’s own documentation in readthedocs. As soon as you tag a release in github you get a new version in readthedocs and the documentation for old versions will be left as is,

    If you set up a webhook in readthedocs then the documentation automatically gets generated if you commit your work to github.

    Agree that this is a good way to proceed?

  • Testers

    For the FogApi powershell module I’m using read the docs with mkdocs.
    You can see the simple .readthedocs.yml and mkdocs.yml config files in my repo for it here https://github.com/darksidemilk/FogApi
    The published version is here https://fogapi.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

    Granted, documenting a powershell module is a bit simpler since it’s mostly documenting the functions and what they do and can be generated from comment blocks in-line in the code.

    I think readthedocs requires (or is at least by default designed) to have the docs in the same repo to help maintain versions. I don’t have versioning setup though. There’s a page for setting up based on branches and I believe releases and tags as well. I believe it could still be done in a separate repo though, might just require more effort to link versions. Or it could be easier cause you just create a new version each time a version of fog is released and whatever the documentation said at that point is the documentation for that version.

    There is also githubpages as a similar option, I found readthedocs a bit easier for my purposes.

    I also remember @Joe-Schmitt setting up readthedocs.io for fog-too I think. That’s how I knew what readthedocs was when I wanted to make public documentation for my powershell code.

    I would love to help out with getting this setup and some things documented.

    Maybe we could have something that grabs stuff from the forums, or maybe just a label/tag we can report against to periodically go through and add to documentation


  • I will create these accounts and will let you know.

    I have to dig some deeper into sphinx/readdthedocs, but I know many projects have documentation for different versions.

    Take Ansible as example: https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/index.html In the top left part you can choose a version. I think this would be handy for Fog as well. A new release: a new set of documentation where you can make the changes that are specific for that version.

  • Senior Developer

    @Wayne-Workman Good point. Though I fear we don’t get our act together to really update the documentation accordingly. Having it all in one repo doesn’t force us to actually update it.

    On the other hand we can still tag a particular state of the documentation in a separate repo to match that same version in the fogproject code repo.

    I just remembered that Joe actually had started a repo and readthedocs project some time ago but we never got into it…

    @Jurgen-Goedbloed Do you have an account with github and readthedocs yet?


  • Here’s the benefits I can think of for keeping them together.

    • a certain version of the documentation is locked together with the corresponding code it’s documenting.
    • When you checkout an older version of fog, you’re also checking out the older corresponding documentation, and if you’re checking out a newer fog, you’re checking out newer corresponding documentation.
    • When comparing differences between an older version and newer one, it may be easier for some to see the changes by looking at the differences in documentation.
  • Senior Developer

    @Wayne-Workman said in Improve documentation:

    why do you think documentation should be in a separate repo?

    Good question. Hmm. Just thought it might be easier to keep track of changes when code and docu are not all in one repo.


  • @Sebastian-Roth why do you think documentation should be in a separate repo?

  • Senior Developer

    @Jurgen-Goedbloed This is really awesome you ask about this!! I was thinking about this the Last days and was planing to ask for help in the forums to improve documentation. So I definitely vote for this! Let’s do it…

    Probably best if we create a new repo for the documentation in https://github.com/FOGproject/
    I would think.

301
Online

7.6k
Users

14.7k
Topics

138.3k
Posts