search

2i2c-org / docs

Documentation for 2i2c community JupyterHubs.
https://docs.2i2c.org
9 stars 17 forks source link

Document our authenticated static website hosting service #151

Open choldgraf opened 2 years ago

choldgraf commented 2 years ago

Context

@yuvipanda is wrapping up adding the ability to host authenticated static websites via the JupyterHub. For example, we could point the hub to a GitHub repository and have it serve the contents of a branch (assuming they're all HTML) as a website.

We have a little bit of documentation at the link below, but we could probably make that a dedicated section, and put other stuff underneath it:

Proposal

We should document this in our user-facing documentation so that others can discover how to use it, and when they might want to use it. Here are a few things that come to mind:

Updates and actions

choldgraf commented 2 years ago

@jmunroe I'm adding you on this one in case you'd like to give it a whirl and work on documentation with me, and maybe we can use this as an opportunity to step through the documentation setup together. What do you think?

@yuvipanda I think we'll need your help in knowing how to actually trigger this, so we might ping you w/ questions!

also cc @arokem because his use-case is driving this functionality right now and it would be useful to hear what he likes / would want differently.

yuvipanda commented 2 years ago

@choldgraf i added a 'howto' doc in https://github.com/2i2c-org/infrastructure/pull/1502 on how to enable this, and I am going to write a 'topic' doc on how it works as well before i count that PR as ready to merge.

yuvipanda commented 2 years ago

I've worked today on supporting pulling from private git repos, and added docs for that too. I think that's good to go now. I'll add the topic document after scipy.

GeorgianaElena commented 1 year ago

We should also remove any reference of docs-service from the user facing docs in this repo too https://github.com/2i2c-org/docs/blob/main/admin/howto/content.md#serve-static-web-content-with-your-hub

choldgraf commented 1 year ago

James is going to give this a shot

Just had a meeting with @jmunroe about this and we agreed there was some confusion about who was responsible for this because so many people were assigned to the issue. We've unassigned @yuvipanda and @choldgraf so James can take the point on this one.

damianavila commented 1 year ago

Even when I understand how having a lot of assignees might be confusing... the idea of having multiple assignees goes in sync with the idea of working in teams on assigned issues. Maybe 3 was too much here, but this one would definitely need @yuvipanda's input and someone else writing that information, which I presume will be @jmunroe.

choldgraf commented 1 year ago

@damianavila I see the point of this as well - my question is "what is the action that being 'assigned' on an issue should evoke?".

In my opinion, the most important thing we can convey is "who is responsible for making sure this issue gets resolved". If we know the answer to that person, and they are empowered to ask for help from others, then I think that this is the best path to ensuring we get the issue done.

If we have multiple people assigned on the issue, and it is not clear which one of them needs to be pushing it forward, then it is more likely to be lost in the noise (like this one was) because nobody feels like they are the ones that must figure out a path forward and make progress.

Maybe we should discuss this in another issue / thread? It seems an important one to align on.

yuvipanda commented 1 year ago

In my opinion, the most important thing we can convey is "who is responsible for making sure this issue gets resolved". If we know the answer to that person, and they are empowered to ask for help from others, then I think that this is the best path to ensuring we get the issue done.

+1

damianavila commented 1 year ago

Maybe we should discuss this in another issue / thread? It seems an important one to align on.

Yep, I think the current assignment capabilities on GitHub do not have the proper granularity. When you ask: "who is responsible for making sure this issue gets resolved"? I would say the paired team! (and this is why I was assigning multiple people to issues). Then it is a matter to be more granular and define who, from that team, would be the lead and who the accompanying members. But I think it is important to align on the responsibility being carried by the team of two/three instead of the lead person who, in addition to the common goal, has the responsibility to be active in pushing forward the task.