docs: restructure network, security and other remaining sections

[yoyo-go]

According to the restructure plan, below sections are restructured:

• Networking
• Security
• Observability
• Operation
• Community
• Contributor Guide
• Reference

Please note that: MicroK8s are indexed separately because it needs to retire in a separate PR later.

[lizrice]

We have some "stuttering" in the table-of-contents - Networking -> Networking, Security->Security, and also Advanced Installation -> Advanced Installation Guides

Can we make it so the next level down section headings appear in the TOC?

[yoyo-go]

Hi @lizrice I have updated the PR per your comments, please have a look and let me know if you have any other questions.

[qmonnet]

@yoyo-go There are conflicts on some files, can you please rebase this PR on the current master branch?

[yoyo-go]

@yoyo-go There are conflicts on some files, can you please rebase this PR on the current master branch?

@qmonnet I have rebased the branch. Please let me know if there is any other issue.

[yoyo-go]

There are a few ones.

• The CI complains because the CODEOWNERS file should be updated. Please see this branch, in which I pushed commits to update it for each of your commit (although I haven't tested the changes through the CI). Can you please retrieve the changes and merge it with the respective commits from your PR?

I have updated the file per your changes.

• Commit 3 contains changes that are not related to the TOC and index updates, but logically belonging to earlier commits, and that should be moved accordingly.

I have updated some other small changes together with this commit.

• What's the point of subdirectories security/security/ and network/networking/? Should they be renamed, or should the subdirectories be removed altogether (with their contents placed under security/ or network/)?

The networking in network/networking is the directory for Network Concepts, and the security for security/security is the directory for Network Security. If that is not good, do you think change the first directory name into network/concept and the second into security/netoworksecurity works better?

[qmonnet]

There are a few ones.

• The CI complains because the CODEOWNERS file should be updated. Please see this branch, in which I pushed commits to update it for each of your commit (although I haven't tested the changes through the CI). Can you please retrieve the changes and merge it with the respective commits from your PR?

I have updated the file per your changes.

Please fold the changes into the respective commits. I took the time to split the CODEOWNERS changes in 3 commits on purpose.

• Commit 3 contains changes that are not related to the TOC and index updates, but logically belonging to earlier commits, and that should be moved accordingly.

I have updated some other small changes together with this commit.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. I'd like these changes to be moved from that last commit to the relevant, earlier commits (networking and security). For example, the renaming of the bandwidth manager has nothing to do in the third commit (which should be only about updating the index.rst and TOC entries), but should instead be part of the reorganisation of the networking section.

I do realise this is not fun to do, but it's a big PR and it will make some tasks more complex for other people (I'm thinking about documentation backports to v1.10, v1.11, v1.12 branches). So I'd really like the Git history to be as clean as possible to help developers understand what's going on, and where the files have gone. I can help if necessary.

• What's the point of subdirectories security/security/ and network/networking/? Should they be renamed, or should the subdirectories be removed altogether (with their contents placed under security/ or network/)?

The networking in network/networking is the directory for Network Concepts, and the security for security/security is the directory for Network Security. If that is not good, do you think change the first directory name into network/concept and the second into security/netoworksecurity works better?

What I meant is that the names looked redundant. Logically, everything under network/ should be about networking, so what would network/networking/ mean? Same thing for security/security/. So yes, I like your new suggestions better, let's go for network/concepts (plural) and maybe security/network/ (Cc @lizrice in case you have better suggestions). Please remember to update the corresponding entries in the CODEOWNERS file accordingly.

[maintainer-s-little-helper[bot]]

Commit 755995f303410303ce55a491a50ffa5acd01bff8 does not contain "Signed-off-by".

Please follow instructions provided in https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/contributing/development/contributing_guide/#developer-s-certificate-of-origin

[maintainer-s-little-helper[bot]]

Commit 8bd70346d2b04b310cd521dd9b65bf2c5c82caeb does not contain "Signed-off-by".

Please follow instructions provided in https://docs.cilium.io/en/stable/contributing/development/contributing_guide/#developer-s-certificate-of-origin

[yoyo-go]

@qmonnet Hi, please have a look at the latest commits, I have done with all the requests in your reply, hope this time I got everything right, please have a look and let me know if there are other issues. Thanks for your help!

[qmonnet]

Nearly there! Can we reduce the list of commits to three different ones? We have:

1. Update Networking, Contributor Guides and Reference sections
2. CODEOWNERS: Update for docs reorganisation (networking)
3. Update Security and the remaining sections
4. CODEOWNERS: Update for docs reorganisation (security)
5. Update sidebar toc and index
6. CODEOWNERS: Update for docs reorganisation (index and misc updates)
7. Rename network/networking and security/security directory with CODEOW…

I would like:

- 1. + 2. + relevant chunks from 7. squashed together
- 3. + 4. + relevant chunks from 7. squashed together
- 5. + 6. squashed together

[yoyo-go]

Nearly there! Can we reduce the list of commits to three different ones? We have:

1. Update Networking, Contributor Guides and Reference sections
2. CODEOWNERS: Update for docs reorganisation (networking)
3. Update Security and the remaining sections
4. CODEOWNERS: Update for docs reorganisation (security)
5. Update sidebar toc and index
6. CODEOWNERS: Update for docs reorganisation (index and misc updates)
7. Rename network/networking and security/security directory with CODEOW…

I would like:

- 1. + 2. + relevant chunks from 7. squashed together
- 3. + 4. + relevant chunks from 7. squashed together
- 5. + 6. squashed together

I have squashed other commits but leaving 7. Rename network/networking and security/security directory because it also contains the rename of index page's directory, and since index has changed its location in ealier commits, it causes many conflicts when I tried to split and squatsg the changes to ealier commits. So can I leave this rename commit as it is？I think the commit itself is quite clear and will not cause trouble.

[qmonnet]

but leaving 7. Rename network/networking and security/security directory

I didn't realise the index changes had to be fold as well. Sorry to insist, but I'd really prefer to have these squashed. I could understand for minor changes, but the double-renaming of the files here is really going to make the backports for documentation unnecessarily complex.

I've squashed that commit for you (and rebased) on this branch. I had to merge with commit 3 as well to be able to build the docs after each commit, so there are only two commits remaining. I've also prefixed the commit subjects with docs: and added that it was part of the reorganisation we're doing, in the description. And please, consider setting up your editor to add line breaks at the end of files. Please double-check that it is the same as your PR (rebase locally and git diff <your branch>..<this branch>), and if it works with you, update accordingly?

[yoyo-go]

I didn't realise the index changes had to be fold as well. Sorry to insist, but I'd really prefer to have these squashed. I could understand for minor changes, but the double-renaming of the files here is really going to make the backports for documentation unnecessarily complex.

I've squashed that commit for you (and rebased) on this branch. I had to merge with commit 3 as well to be able to build the docs after each commit, so there are only two commits remaining. I've also prefixed the commit subjects with docs: and added that it was part of the reorganisation we're doing, in the description. And please, consider setting up your editor to add line breaks at the end of files. Please double-check that it is the same as your PR (rebase locally and git diff <your branch>..<this branch>), and if it works with you, update accordingly?

@qmonnet Thank you sooooo much! I have rebased it locally and find out the diffs are all new lines under new files, apart from that, everything is the same. I have moved the commits here and updated this PR, really thank you for your help!

[qmonnet]

@yoyo-go Sorry, there's a conflict that needs to be addressed now. Can you please rebase?

[yoyo-go]

@yoyo-go Sorry, there's a conflict that needs to be addressed now. Can you please rebase?

@qmonnet Rebased on upstream master, does that work?

[qmonnet]

It probably did, but it looks like more conflicts appeared since then :/

[yoyo-go]

It probably did, but it looks like more conflicts appeared since then :/

@qmonnet and @joestringer , I have rebased this PR again, hope this time the merge will work.