-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
Removing [discrete] tags from main in prep for DITA migration #96676
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
|
🤖 Thu Sep 11 16:55:43 - Prow CI generated the docs preview: |
c84090f to
f30fb46
Compare
|
On hold until the build errors are fixed. Being done by https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSDOCS-15521. |
|
Node, MCO LGTM |
jeana-redhat
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changes in my topic areas LGTM. I had some Qs/comments on cluster Operators and capabilities content.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems like one of the weirder areas for this change - because of how the Operator entries are organized, it will really explode the TOC
Existing: https://docs.okd.io/latest/operators/operator-reference.html
Updated: https://96676--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/operators/operator-reference
I see there is an Operators ref specific PR up here, is the intent to ditch this change in here and use that?
That version: https://96711--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/operators/operator-reference
It still has what seem like pretty low-value headings bogging down the TOC. I would consider looking at using description lists for all the == headings in the cluster Operator modules, imho they don't really need to be headings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems like one of the weirder areas for this change - because of how the Operator entries are organized, it will really explode the TOC
Existing: https://docs.okd.io/latest/operators/operator-reference.html Updated: https://96676--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/operators/operator-reference
I see there is an Operators ref specific PR up here, is the intent to ditch this change in here and use that?
That version: https://96711--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/operators/operator-reference
It still has what seem like pretty low-value headings bogging down the TOC. I would consider looking at using description lists for all the
==headings in the cluster Operator modules, imho they don't really need to be headings.
Consider level 3 headings as well. I don't think these show in TOCs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Level 3 headings are also on the list of cleanup items, we will only be able to go as deep as level 2 going forward
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rock and a hard place 🪨 . Description lists might be the best path forward 👍 .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we move this discussion to the appropriate PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To recap the other PR:
- Ashleigh is going to remove the
Purposeheadings - I'll create a follow up PR once her PR merges to move the
Projectcontent to the trailingadditional resourcessections and move anyNotesto the main body text.
That leaves CRD and Configuration headings behind. Though that content is skeletal, it is at least information customers will be scanning for.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The modules in the installing/overview/cluster-capabilities.adoc assembly have a similar format as the ones in the cluster Operator modules: https://96676--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/installing/overview/cluster-capabilities#machine-api-capability_cluster-capabilities
They don't explode the TOC because they are nested one level deeper, but I feel like maybe they also might make sense as description lists because the headings are sorta low-value?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oops, should have Cc'ed @bscott-rh here
|
nwt, lgtm. |
891cfc7 to
e9cd75a
Compare
|
I've updated this to do a fresh removal, but not to include aligned team files (where possible to identify them easily). |
e9cd75a to
aa9e9c9
Compare
|
/retest |
|
@bergerhoffer: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
/cherrypick enterprise-4.20 |
|
/cherrypick enterprise-4.19 |
|
/cherrypick enterprise-4.18 |
|
@bergerhoffer: #96676 failed to apply on top of branch "enterprise-4.20": In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@bergerhoffer: #96676 failed to apply on top of branch "enterprise-4.19": In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@bergerhoffer: #96676 failed to apply on top of branch "enterprise-4.18": In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
Version(s):
4.14+. Will CP back as far as I can, and then run additional removals as necessary in future PRs.
Issue:
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSDOCS-15507
Link to docs preview:
QE review:
N/A - formatting only change
Additional information:
Marking [WIP] because we want to notify the core team and aligned teams of this, in case they want to make any changes to any of their content.
Also want to see if this will break anything :) For example, some headings don't have IDs specified - not sure if that will cause any grief.
Editing to add that the build failed due to some of the headings being out of order. Opened https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSDOCS-15521 to address those first before doing the removal sweep