Added new sections

[doc.git] / docs / guide / onap-developer / how-to-use-docs / documentation-guide.rst

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 6bce35d..316e0af 100644 (file)
--- 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
 ---------