Skip to content

included odo lists throughout authoring stack docs #78

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 27, 2021
Merged

included odo lists throughout authoring stack docs #78

merged 4 commits into from
Jul 27, 2021

Conversation

jc-berger
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #312.

As a reference, I'm taking content the tables from odo tables and including them throughout the authoring stacks docs.

See the conversation in PR #69 where we thought that including the odo tables throughout the authoring stacks might be better than creating an entirely new doc.

@jc-berger jc-berger added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jun 24, 2021
@jc-berger jc-berger self-assigned this Jun 24, 2021
Copy link
Contributor

@elsony elsony left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this PR supposed to be the complete changes for the migration from odo doc? I ask that since this PR doesn't seem to capture all info from the existing odo doc. Take the event for example: https://odo.dev/file-reference/#prestartobject. It has a detailed description for each of the event objects and we don't have that in here.

@elsony
Copy link
Contributor

elsony commented Jul 7, 2021

Adding @kadel to the review list since this is supposed to be a replacement for part of the odo doc.

@jc-berger
Copy link
Contributor Author

@elsony and/or @kadel please see the new commit, added more of the odo tables throughout the authoring stacks docs. I've included a lot more of the odo tables and their contents throughout our docs. Thanks!

Copy link
Member

@kadel kadel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is good start. Basic structure makes sense.

We will have to improve field description to make it more useful, but that can be done separately and primarily in schema itself

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jul 22, 2021
@jc-berger
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kadel sounds good and thanks. @elsony if it looks good to you too, we can go ahead and merge!

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm label Jul 22, 2021
@jc-berger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @elsony for the feedback. I'll make a new commit, addressing these changes, tomorrow!

@jc-berger
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've left some comments open to direct the final dev review. If the dev review thinks it looks good to merge, please go ahead and do so, thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

@elsony elsony left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We are getting very close. Just a couple of minor changes.

Copy link
Contributor

@elsony elsony left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jul 27, 2021
@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 27, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: elsony, jc-berger, kadel

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@elsony elsony merged commit 1581bf0 into devfile:master Jul 27, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation lgtm
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants