Skip to content

Conversation

@kilfoyle
Copy link
Contributor

@kilfoyle kilfoyle commented Nov 3, 2020

Hi @sebgl, May I ask you to review this PR for me, or point me in the right direction? This fixes a link in the K8s docs that will break once we merge other changes for the stack 7.10 release, so this will allow the docs build to pass ( elastic/docs#1994 ).

Also, I'll need to backport this to releases 0.9, 1.0-beta, 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2. Can you let me know if I've got the right labels for that? If so, I assume I just create the backports manually, right?

Sorry for the all the questions. Arianna is out this week and I'm a new visitor to this repo. :-)

@kilfoyle kilfoyle requested a review from sebgl November 3, 2020 22:34
@kilfoyle kilfoyle changed the title Fix broken link to elasticsearch heap size docs Fix broken link to Elasticsearch "heap size" docs Nov 3, 2020
Copy link

@kellyemurphy kellyemurphy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Looks like there is a tool to generate backports that this repo uses.

@kilfoyle
Copy link
Contributor Author

kilfoyle commented Nov 4, 2020

Thanks @kellyemurphy! Looks like I'm not authorized to merge in this repo. :-(

If `ES_JAVA_OPTS` is not defined, the Elasticsearch default heap size of 1Gi will be in effect.

See also: link:https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/heap-size.html[Elasticsearch documentation on setting the heap size]
For more information, see the entry for `heap size` in the link:{ref}/important-settings.html[Important Elasticsearch configuration] documentation.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess {ref} here actually points to the Elasticsearch reference url base path?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, exactly.

Copy link
Contributor

@sebgl sebgl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks great, thanks!

@sebgl
Copy link
Contributor

sebgl commented Nov 4, 2020

Also, I'll need to backport this to releases 0.9, 1.0-beta, 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2. Can you let me know if I've got the right labels for that? If so, I assume I just create the backports manually, right?

What we usually do is set a label for the smallest version (here that would be 0.9 - in practice I'm not sure we care much about updating docs for versions older than 1.0?) in the PR that targets master (this PR).

Then we create a bunch of PRs with the backport label, targeting the other branches (1.1, 1.2, 1.3). The way to create those backport PRs is up to you. Some folks do it manually, some folks use npx backport.

@sebgl
Copy link
Contributor

sebgl commented Nov 4, 2020

@kilfoyle please let me know if you need help with the backport PRs!

kilfoyle added a commit to kilfoyle/cloud-on-k8s that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2020
kilfoyle added a commit to kilfoyle/cloud-on-k8s that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2020
kilfoyle added a commit to kilfoyle/cloud-on-k8s that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2020
kilfoyle added a commit to kilfoyle/cloud-on-k8s that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2020
kilfoyle added a commit to kilfoyle/cloud-on-k8s that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2020
@kilfoyle
Copy link
Contributor Author

kilfoyle commented Nov 4, 2020

Thanks for your help @sebgl

Some background on this: The CI checks for the docs builds are very sensitive, and will fail if any broken links are detected even in outdated releases. So a broken link even in the 1.0-beta or 0.9 release will, unfortunately, prevent the main docs PR for the 7.10 stack release (elastic/docs#1994) from passing, as well as any subsequent docs PRs.

I've opened backports for:
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0-beta
0.9 You mentioned that we needed backport PRs only for the middle releases, but I'm not sure I understand how the change would get into 0.9, so I opened this just in case.

I see @charith-elastic (Thanks Charith!) has suggested we can override the failed CI checks on some of these. Since I don't have authority to merge in this repo, could I ask either of you to help me with that?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

>docs Documentation v0.9.0

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants