OpenBMC userguide questions

OpenBMC userguide questions

[Zbyszek]

Hi,
Few days ago I have pushed to review something that can be called a userguide.

https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/docs/+/32234

Because there were no user guides so far neither any template some
questions arose, like:
* Should we use the reply markup to indicate side comments though-out?
* Do we want to add user level doc to userguide? or put this doc under
security? Currently userguide only has a .tex including other markup.
* Do we allow the `---` line separating doc header and text
introducing to document?

I will appreciate you answers here on mailing list or as a comments
under mentioned review.

Thanks,
Best regards,
-Zbigniew

Re: OpenBMC userguide questions

[Patrick Williams]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1318 bytes --]

Hi Zbyszek,

In general, I would say you should follow the format of existing
documents.  I think that answers the majoriy of your questions at a
high-level.

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:49:49AM +0200, Zbyszek wrote:
> * Should we use the reply markup to indicate side comments though-out?

I would say no.  In Markdown ">" are for quotes.  You're not quoting
anything.  Skimming through it seems like with a little effort you could
just integrate these "side comments" into the document flow.

> * Do we want to add user level doc to userguide? or put this doc under
> security? Currently userguide only has a .tex including other markup.

It looks like the userguide directory is for a .tex wrapper that was put
in to generate a single document from a few Markdown sub-files.  The
majority of the "content" of this file comes from the root directory, so
it would seem that the pattern is to treat most things in root as
"user-guides".

The whole docs repository could use some reorganization, but we should
treat that separate from this commit.

> * Do we allow the `---` line separating doc header and text
> introducing to document?

No, let's follow the format of the existing documents.  Maybe a 
"## Introduction" would be just as appropriate in this case.

-- 
Patrick Williams

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: OpenBMC userguide questions

[Zbyszek]

Thank you Patrick for your quick response.
I will apply your comments in the document.

pt., 15 maj 2020 o 14:13 Patrick Williams <patrick@stwcx.xyz> napisał(a):
>
> Hi Zbyszek,
>
> In general, I would say you should follow the format of existing
> documents.  I think that answers the majoriy of your questions at a
> high-level.
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:49:49AM +0200, Zbyszek wrote:
> > * Should we use the reply markup to indicate side comments though-out?
>
> I would say no.  In Markdown ">" are for quotes.  You're not quoting
> anything.  Skimming through it seems like with a little effort you could
> just integrate these "side comments" into the document flow.
>
> > * Do we want to add user level doc to userguide? or put this doc under
> > security? Currently userguide only has a .tex including other markup.
>
> It looks like the userguide directory is for a .tex wrapper that was put
> in to generate a single document from a few Markdown sub-files.  The
> majority of the "content" of this file comes from the root directory, so
> it would seem that the pattern is to treat most things in root as
> "user-guides".
>
> The whole docs repository could use some reorganization, but we should
> treat that separate from this commit.
>
> > * Do we allow the `---` line separating doc header and text
> > introducing to document?
>
> No, let's follow the format of the existing documents.  Maybe a
> "## Introduction" would be just as appropriate in this case.
>
> --
> Patrick Williams