documentation-website
documentation-website copied to clipboard
opensearch-project
LTR documentation
Description
The OpenSearch LTR plugin doesn't have any information in the documentation website.
See this spreadsheet to track the migration effort: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b81JlMCurjhPi-kaGW8eBkiV7s3x4NrtHpyPO3mlghg/edit?gid=0#gid=0
Issues Resolved
No issues, however this replaces a previously opened PR that I messed up: https://github.com/opensearch-project/documentation-website/pull/8074
Version
This documentation actually covers the most recent versions of LTR. So when we cut the 2.17 version, this would cover it, as well as the previous 2.16 and 2.15.
Thank you for submitting your PR. The PR states are In progress (or Draft) -> Tech review -> Doc review -> Editorial review -> Merged.
Before you submit your PR for doc review, make sure the content is technically accurate. If you need help finding a tech reviewer, tag a maintainer.
When you're ready for doc review, tag the assignee of this PR. The doc reviewer may push edits to the PR directly or leave comments and editorial suggestions for you to address (let us know in a comment if you have a preference). The doc reviewer will arrange for an editorial review.
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
Okay @kolchfa-aws and colleagues, this PR is ready for review. We have one set of links to a demo in the https://github.com/opensearch-project/opensearch-learning-to-rank-base where that demo hasn't been published yet. However, everything else should be current. Looking forward to feedback.
Okay @kolchfa-aws and colleagues, this PR is ready for review. We have one set of links to a demo in the https://github.com/opensearch-project/opensearch-learning-to-rank-base where that demo hasn't been published yet. However, everything else should be current. Looking forward to feedback.
I'm starting the review. The SLA is 5 days due to the volume of content. Thank you.
@vagimeli I think that is a perfectly wonderful SLA! @scottstults will also being a pass through of the technical content as another set of eyes.
@epugh Please give me permission to push to your branch. There are too many changes for me to go line by line in GitHib. For example, here's the revised content for advanced-functionality.md. I'd like to push the changes to the branch. This is the standard process for technical writers reviewing and revising contributor content. Thank you, Melissa advanced-functionality.md
Doc review complete on advanced-functionality.md and faq.md. Files attached, as I don't have permission to commit and push my changes. Because of the many rewrites and edits, please use the attached .md files. I'll upload files as they each complete doc review. Thank you for putting up the initial PR. advanced-functionality.md faq.md
Doc review complete on building-features.md. See attached file for rewrites and edits. building-features.md
Doc review complete on feature-engineering.md. See attached file for rewrites and edits. feature-engineering.md
Doc review complete on logging-features.md. See attached file for rewrites and edits. logging-features.md
Doc review complete on searching-with-your-model.md. See attached file for rewrites and edits. searching-with-your-model.md
Doc review complete on training-models.md. See attached file for rewrites and edits. training-models.md
@vagimeli I'm catching up on this PR after an exciting week at OpenSearchCon! I just added you to the https://github.com/o19s/documentation-website/ repo, which should let you push directly! Having said that, I'll also go through your attached files and get them committed, and then maybe another once over and we are good?
@vagimeli what do you think about having @sstults and @johannesdaniel do the technical review of the content? I think at this point, especially after your rewrite, we are done with the content phase.
@vagimeli what do you think about having @sstults and @JohannesDaniel do the technical review of the content? I think at this point, especially after your rewrite, we are done with the content phase.
@epugh Thank you. I think it's a great idea to have them tech review.
@vagimeli Implemented some fixes. Are we ready to merge now?
@JohannesDaniel Thank you for the technical review. This PR goes through editorial review and then once that feedback is addressed, the PR will be merged. I've scheduled it for editorial review, which has a minimum SLA of two days. I'll track this and merge it upon editorial approval.
@natebower Thank you for your quick turnaround on the 2,000+ lines :) I accepted all your edits and suggested rewrites.