diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/guide/onap-developer/how-to-use-docs/documentation-guide.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/guide/onap-developer/how-to-use-docs/documentation-guide.rst | 59 |
1 files changed, 59 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/guide/onap-developer/how-to-use-docs/documentation-guide.rst b/docs/guide/onap-developer/how-to-use-docs/documentation-guide.rst index 6bce35df9..316e0af31 100644 --- a/docs/guide/onap-developer/how-to-use-docs/documentation-guide.rst +++ b/docs/guide/onap-developer/how-to-use-docs/documentation-guide.rst @@ -29,6 +29,65 @@ The developer Wiki or other web sites can reference these rendered documents directly allowing projects to easily maintain current release documentation. +Why reStructuredText/Sphinx? +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +In the past, standard documentation methods included ad-hoc Word documents, PDFs, +poorly organized Wikis, and other, often closed, tools like Adobe FrameMaker. +The rise of DevOps, Agile, and Continuous Integration, however, created a paradigm +shift for those who care about documentation because: + +1. Documentation must be tightly coupled with code/product releases. In many cases, +particularly with open-source products, many different versions of the same code +can be installed in various production environments. DevOps personnel must have +access to the correct version of documentation. + +2. Resources are often tight, volunteers scarce. With a large software base +like ONAP, a small team of technical writers, even if they are also developers, +cannot keep up with a constantly changing, large code base. Therefore, those closest +to the code should document it as best they can, and let professional writers edit for +style, grammar, and consistency. + +Plain-text formatting syntaxes, such as reStructuredText, Markdown, and Textile, +are a good choice for documentation because: + a. They are editor agnostic + b. The source is nearly as easy to read as the rendered text + c. Documentation can be treated exactly as source code is (e.g. versioned, +diff'ed, associated with commit messages that can be included in rendered docs) + d. Shallow learning curve + +The documentation team chose reStructuredText largely because of Sphinx, a Python-based +documentation build system, which uses reStructuredText natively. In a code base +as large as ONAP's, cross-referencing between component documentation was deemed +critical. Sphinx and reStructuredText have built-in functionality that makes +collating and cross-referencing component documentation easier. + +Which docs should go where? +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Frequently, developers ask where documentation should be created. Should they always use +reStructuredText/Sphinx? Not necessarily. Is the wiki appropriate for anything at all? Yes. + +It's really up to the development team. Here is a simple rule: + +The more tightly coupled the documentation is to a particular version of the code, +the more likely it is that it should be stored with the code in reStructuredText. + +Two examples on opposite ends of the spectrum: + +Example 1: API documentation is often stored literally as code in the form of formatted +comment sections. This would be an ideal choice for reStructuredText stored in a doc repo. + +Example 2: A high-level document that describes in general how a particular component interacts +with other ONAP components with charts. The wiki would be a better choice for this. + +The doc team encourages component teams to store as much documentation as reStructuredText +as possible because: + +1. The doc team can more easily edit component documentation for grammar, spelling, clarity, and consistency. +2. A consistent formatting syntax across components will allow the doc team more flexibility in producing different kinds of output. +3. The doc team can easily re-organize the documentation. +4. Wiki articles tend to grow stale over time as the people who write them change positions or projects. Structure --------- |