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

Split docs to kernel-mgmt #4

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 1, 2019
Merged

Split docs to kernel-mgmt #4

merged 2 commits into from
Nov 1, 2019

Conversation

kevin-bates
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request moves the kernel provider-specific material to jupyter-kernel-mgmt.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Oct 29, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #4 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master       #4   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   72.27%   72.27%           
=======================================
  Files          17       17           
  Lines        1277     1277           
=======================================
  Hits          923      923           
  Misses        354      354

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5881efb...6987932. Read the comment docs.

@kevin-bates
Copy link
Contributor Author

This PR should be considered preliminary since it establishes the initial presence on readthedocs.io. It also cross-references with jupyter_kernel_mgmt and takluyver/jupyter_kernel_mgmt#26.

@takluyver
Copy link
Owner

I'm somewhat uncomfortable about splitting docs up still more - I think it's quite hostile to people trying to get to grips with Jupyter that documentation is in so many little separate pieces. But both JKM and jupyter_protocol are meant to be public API packages which should be documented, and that's easiest to do with the docs in their respective repos. And if jupyter_protocol becomes the main Python implementation of the message spec, it probably makes sense for the protocol description to live along with it.

So I think merging this and the corresponding JKM pull request is the way forwards. But I want to mention this reservation first, in case anyone can see a better way we could try to organise documentation.

@kevin-bates
Copy link
Contributor Author

I agree with your concern. We will also have two "authoritative description[s] of the Jupyter messaging protocol". 😞 So, like many things between the notebook and juptyer_server repos, we'll need to keep things in-sync between juptyer_client and jupyter_protocol/jupyter_kernel_mgmt. jupyter/jupyter_client#486 is a great example, for instance.

Copy link
Owner

@takluyver takluyver left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks. We don't seem to have had any brainwaves for great alternatives, though. So let's move forwards with this.

docs/changelog.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/index.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/index.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
@takluyver takluyver merged commit c020a5b into takluyver:master Nov 1, 2019
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 this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants