GNU bug report logs - #22687
Online manual not updated automatically

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 22687 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 22687 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:50:24 -0500

----- Forwarded message from carl hansen <carlhansen1234 <at> gmail.com> -----
 http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/
works.
BUT
it says:
"last updated November 04, 2015"
So cronjob on gnu.org that updates to the lastest version is not working.
Might
be the answer to the problem about , too.

----- End forwarded message -----

I see the value of the online manual matching the version of the Guix
binaries we distribute, but on the other hand, we get a lot of questions
that are answered in the latest version of the manual.

Thoughts?

Message #8 received at 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Thompson, David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:49:17 -0500

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from carl hansen <carlhansen1234 <at> gmail.com> -----
>  http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/
> works.
> BUT
> it says:
> "last updated November 04, 2015"
> So cronjob on gnu.org that updates to the lastest version is not working.
> Might
> be the answer to the problem about , too.
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
> I see the value of the online manual matching the version of the Guix
> binaries we distribute, but on the other hand, we get a lot of questions
> that are answered in the latest version of the manual.
>
> Thoughts?

IMO, this is a "wontfix", but let's see what everyone else thinks.

- Dave

Message #11 received at 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus <at> mdc-berlin.de>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:06:40 +0100

Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> writes:

> I see the value of the online manual matching the version of the Guix
> binaries we distribute, but on the other hand, we get a lot of questions
> that are answered in the latest version of the manual.

Many other projects publish online manuals for both stable and
development versions.  As our releases are a little far apart and we’re
encouraging to do “guix pull” (so users really run the development
version) I think it would indeed make sense to also publish an
up-to-date version of the manual along with the manual for the latest
release.

~~ Ricardo

Message #14 received at 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus <at> mdc-berlin.de>
Cc: 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:25:04 +0100

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:06:40AM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Many other projects publish online manuals for both stable and
> development versions.  As our releases are a little far apart and we’re
> encouraging to do “guix pull” (so users really run the development
> version) I think it would indeed make sense to also publish an
> up-to-date version of the manual along with the manual for the latest
> release.

Or alternatively, release more often :-)

I wonder whether we should not make a point release after each security
update instead of encouraging people to use "guix pull" (but we would
quickly arrive at 0.9.9 now, after which only 1.0.0 would be a reasonable
option to keep numerical and lexicographical ordering consistent).
Or a point-point release as 0.9.0.1 and so on.

Andreas

Message #17 received at 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus <at> mdc-berlin.de>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:33:27 +0100

Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:06:40AM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>> Many other projects publish online manuals for both stable and
>> development versions.  As our releases are a little far apart and we’re
>> encouraging to do “guix pull” (so users really run the development
>> version) I think it would indeed make sense to also publish an
>> up-to-date version of the manual along with the manual for the latest
>> release.
>
> Or alternatively, release more often :-)

I was not courageous enough to suggest that, but this does sound like a
good idea.

> I wonder whether we should not make a point release after each security
> update instead of encouraging people to use "guix pull" (but we would
> quickly arrive at 0.9.9 now, after which only 1.0.0 would be a reasonable
> option to keep numerical and lexicographical ordering consistent).
> Or a point-point release as 0.9.0.1 and so on.

I would like that.  We could make patch releases for each time we merge
core-updates / security-fixes into master.

~~ Ricardo

Message #20 received at 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus <at> mdc-berlin.de>
Cc: 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:42:18 +0100

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 05:33:27PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> I was not courageous enough to suggest that, but this does sound like a
> good idea.

It is easy enough to have that courage when one is not the person making
the releases :-)

Andreas

Message #23 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Florian Paul Schmidt <mista.tapas <at> gmx.net>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:14:51 +0100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 16.02.2016 17:42, Andreas Enge wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 05:33:27PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>> I was not courageous enough to suggest that, but this does sound
>> like a good idea.
> 
> It is easy enough to have that courage when one is not the person
> making the releases :-)

Hmm, shouldn't that process be mostly automated? And if not, maybe
it's worth thinking about how to do that. I guess from a functional
point of view a release is just a function that takes a revision and
has as its outputs installer images, binary installers, a new website,
yada yada yada..

Regards,
Flo


- -- 
https://fps.io
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWw1kKAAoJEA5f4Coltk8Z/6sH/1CuqcAbB+RC/b4bmyBkSJ0z
SlJBjkfs9BUxLtjzLXMn52t0dKOmA92CiVpZblTxb0M3rcruOY44Wlkc3J5PqP3U
Aqh+YzrowqKHBi+iikftiJYj9X7beh7rWxmM48nWkdtPTfLUYdbi5+AJtz7bwvQ8
ZHx5wilEVaUnXKyiora3V2Nm8bjGQXIfncvQy7rrON2XaNZut8ruIAI0FSn8F4xD
WPWP5tuTTdHJNCOSmsPr1kM2kmoBZ3hDs4BeJWbiTUMJTsh3G/P+z1XUBuoS3zWJ
CwYrTwZzulq9JTP10JdMOEBcoZ9/za3cpiHM2n8rA1CEpVKRKM/s9tnKZjl+oZ8=
=ODkW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #26 received at 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mathieu Lirzin <mthl <at> gnu.org>
To: Florian Paul Schmidt <mista.tapas <at> gmx.net>
Cc: 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:37:49 +0100

Florian Paul Schmidt <mista.tapas <at> gmx.net> writes:

> On 16.02.2016 17:42, Andreas Enge wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 05:33:27PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>>> I was not courageous enough to suggest that, but this does sound
>>> like a good idea.
>> 
>> It is easy enough to have that courage when one is not the person
>> making the releases :-)
>
> Hmm, shouldn't that process be mostly automated? And if not, maybe
> it's worth thinking about how to do that. I guess from a functional
> point of view a release is just a function that takes a revision and
> has as its outputs installer images, binary installers, a new website,
> yada yada yada..

IIUC The problem is that making a release involves a lot a build power
that take long long time and makes it difficult to resolve unavoidable
issues encountered during the process.

I remember hearing Ludo explaining that the release process for Guix was
more involving than for the other software projects he experienced.

--
Mathieu Lirzin

Message #29 received at 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Chris Marusich <cmmarusich <at> gmail.com>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus <at> mdc-berlin.de>
Cc: 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:07:28 -0800

Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus <at> mdc-berlin.de> writes:

> Many other projects publish online manuals for both stable and
> development versions.  As our releases are a little far apart and we’re
> encouraging to do “guix pull” (so users really run the development
> version) I think it would indeed make sense to also publish an
> up-to-date version of the manual along with the manual for the latest
> release.

Does guix pull not update the manual?

- Chris

Message #32 received at 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
To: Chris Marusich <cmmarusich <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:38:55 +0300

Chris Marusich (2016-02-17 07:07 +0300) wrote:

> Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus <at> mdc-berlin.de> writes:
>
>> Many other projects publish online manuals for both stable and
>> development versions.  As our releases are a little far apart and we’re
>> encouraging to do “guix pull” (so users really run the development
>> version) I think it would indeed make sense to also publish an
>> up-to-date version of the manual along with the manual for the latest
>> release.
>
> Does guix pull not update the manual?

No, currently it updates only the scheme code.

-- 
Alex

Message #35 received at 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Mathieu Lirzin <mthl <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Florian Paul Schmidt <mista.tapas <at> gmx.net>, 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 23:41:04 +0100

Mathieu Lirzin <mthl <at> gnu.org> skribis:

> Florian Paul Schmidt <mista.tapas <at> gmx.net> writes:
>
>> On 16.02.2016 17:42, Andreas Enge wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 05:33:27PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>>>> I was not courageous enough to suggest that, but this does sound
>>>> like a good idea.
>>> 
>>> It is easy enough to have that courage when one is not the person
>>> making the releases :-)
>>
>> Hmm, shouldn't that process be mostly automated? And if not, maybe
>> it's worth thinking about how to do that. I guess from a functional
>> point of view a release is just a function that takes a revision and
>> has as its outputs installer images, binary installers, a new website,
>> yada yada yada..
>
> IIUC The problem is that making a release involves a lot a build power
> that take long long time and makes it difficult to resolve unavoidable
> issues encountered during the process.
>
> I remember hearing Ludo explaining that the release process for Guix was
> more involving than for the other software projects he experienced.

Yeah it typically takes a lot of time waiting for builds and uploads to
complete.  See ‘release.org’ in guix-maintenance.git for a feel.

If people have ideas on how to improve the process, I’m all ears!  :-)

Ludo’.

Message #38 received at 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus <at> mdc-berlin.de>
Cc: 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 23:43:26 +0100

Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus <at> mdc-berlin.de> skribis:

> Many other projects publish online manuals for both stable and
> development versions.  As our releases are a little far apart and we’re
> encouraging to do “guix pull” (so users really run the development
> version) I think it would indeed make sense to also publish an
> up-to-date version of the manual along with the manual for the latest
> release.

Yeah, sounds like we should do that, probably by setting up a cron job
on one of the machines.

I’ll see what can be done if nobody beats me at it.

Ludo’.

Message #43 received at 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
To: 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:52:06 +0100

Following swedebugia's example, I suggest we close this bug, since we 
now have https://guix.info/manual/{de,en,fr}

should we advertise that version better from the main website at 
gnu.org?

Message #46 received at 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
Cc: 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:28:41 +0100

Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu> writes:

> Following swedebugia's example, I suggest we close this bug, since we
> now have https://guix.info/manual/{de,en,fr}
>
> should we advertise that version better from the main website at
> gnu.org?

I’d prefer not to advertise guix.info just yet.  If we get the
guix.gnu.org subdomain (+ DNS delegation) set up without problems then
we might just let guix.info disappear into the void.

--
Ricardo

Message #49 received at 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
To: 22687 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:31:59 +0200

We now have guix.gnu.org/manual and /manual/devel, which I think implements this issue. Should we close it now?

Message #54 received at 22687-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
Cc: 22687-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22687: Online manual not updated automatically
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:46:01 -0400

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 05:31:59PM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote:
> We now have guix.gnu.org/manual and /manual/devel, which I think implements this issue. Should we close it now?

Yes :)

Thanks for the reminder

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.