Description of problem: There's no one document for setting up RH-HI right now (or a simple, easy to consume, automated approach either). There's 4+ documents to follow. This lends itself to deterring the end user from setting up and using this product at all. This severely inhibits the user experience in addition to inhibiting testing internally by Red Hat engineers. It is a daily task to figure out what we're trying to do at a concept level versus how that translates into RHV-m versus how to actually do that via the gui and/or cli. This should all be a seamless experience. Left unchanged this will hurt the RH-HI solutions acceptance. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 1.1 and 1.1+ How reproducible: Daily issues Expected results: An easy to follow document (Read: One document) that clearly has the steps to manually deploy & configure a RH-HI POD
Resetting component as this looks like it's primarily a docs issue.
Adding more context as the CS&S is going through our notes. Question: Is there a new documentation tool still being considered? Issue: In multi-page html & pdf versions of documentation "Deploy" and all headers of PARTs appear as blank pages and lead to a messy/unpolished document. Doc in Question: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_hyperconverged_infrastructure/1.1/html/deploying_red_hat_hyperconverged_infrastructure/deploy Proposed solutions: #1 Incorporate something else on the page. a table of contents of that section or a "this page was intentionally left blank" disclaimer #2 If the new tool is still on the road map and would take care of this than that is a reasonable solution too.
Thanks for the extra context here Dave. The blank page issue isn't something the docs writers can fix directly, since as you mention it does involve tooling beyond the markup language that we write in. I believe those blanks are in place so that printing for binding purposes is accounted for (starting chapters on the right-hand page, etc.) but you're right that the blanks in the HTML view are confusing. I'll touch base with the tools team and the content strategist to see what we can do about altering these things.
Just letting you know that discussion is happening and we're pretty sure it's an interpretation-by-the-backend thing that has the front-end workaround of 'add some superfluous content here so it's not confusingly blank' right now. We're working on a less superfluous option.
Ongoing discussion, postponing.
The doc changes looks good and unambiguous. Most of the sections have that added clarity