Skip to content
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

apiage: add links to documentation #592

Closed
phlogistonjohn opened this issue Oct 4, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

apiage: add links to documentation #592

phlogistonjohn opened this issue Oct 4, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@phlogistonjohn
Copy link
Collaborator

phlogistonjohn commented Oct 4, 2021

I had meant to add hyperlinks to the "official" go docs for go ceph when our tool generates the markdown table of deprecated and preview APIs. But I never got around to it. It should be straightforward use of the pkg name and [<type>.]>func> after the anchor (#)`.

@ansiwen
Copy link
Collaborator

ansiwen commented Jul 11, 2022

Preview APIs don't have docs and deprecated APIs should not be used, so I would vote for not doing that.

@phlogistonjohn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

At one point I was looking into how we could generate our own static docs and use that to supplement the online docs. Unfortunately, while there is some existing tooling to do so it appeared unmaintained and there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in that approach currently.

That said I haven't completely given up on the idea.

@phlogistonjohn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm OK with closing the issue. Issue #601 tracks the problem with the preview tags/apis, as well as some of my previous comments about static generation. If #601 is ever solved then we can revisit the idea (or just combine them?).

@anoopcs9
Copy link
Collaborator

Preview APIs don't have docs and deprecated APIs should not be used, so I would vote for not doing that.

I second that.

I'm OK with closing the issue. Issue #601 tracks the problem with the preview tags/apis, as well as some of my previous comments about static generation. If #601 is ever solved then we can revisit the idea (or just combine them?).

Hm.. let's just close it for now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants