Bug 3657

  instances also noted in bug 3638.

Hob documentation is being reworked now and I'll make sure that fixing this stuff is part of that work.

thanks

Reassigning to Belen

(In reply to comment #0)
> Fixes(?) for https://www.yoctoproject.org/documentation/hob-manual:
> 
> 1) Viewing under Chrome exposes underlying HTML source ("video:", " ",
> etc.)

All gone

> 
> 2) "overviews" is *not* a verb  :-)

Also gone

> 
> 3) "Images" is still ambiguous.  Based on a recent posting of mine to the
> yocto list, the word "image" is used in two very disparate ways.  Not sure
> if there's a clean solution to this.

Could you please clarify? What are the 2 very disparate ways?

> 
> 4) There is no mention on that page that working within Hob does *not*
> affect your existing config files -- I think that's a fairly important point
> to stress, and it's something that's been bugzilla'ed.  And yes, bugzilla is
> a verb. :-)

I am not a copywriter and English is not my first language. Can I ask you for a bit of help with the text? Will a single sentence like the one below suffice: 

"Please note that Hob does not affect your existing configuration files, and therefore building with Hob and with the command line interface might generate different output."

Or would you suggest some more depth?

> 
> 5) At bottom of page, there's a link back to the page itself (unnecessary),
> but there *should* be a link to "Current Manuals".

This seems to be part of the page CMS template. I believe Jeff is working with Michael Halstead to get those removed.

Just a quick note - Michael and I looked at #5 today. We were able to eliminate the spurious text announcing "Current Manuals", but we can't remove the self-referential link without considerably more work, as it is part of the Drupal-based structure of that page type. I'm going to call that a WONTFIX for now, but will keep it in mind if/when we ever go over the page structure again.

That leaves us only with 3 and 4. 

If Robert could provide a link to the post where he talks about the 2 meanings of the word 'image' we could try to clarify the terminology.

Scott: do you think you could help with 4? Some background: we need to explain that working within Hob does *not* affect the existing config files, and that we are currently working to change this model (bug 3576). I suggested something like this:

"Please note that Hob does not affect your existing configuration files, and therefore building with Hob and with the command line interface might generate different output. We are currently working on improving the interaction between BitBake and Hob (see bug 3576)."

Could you help us polish the above paragraph?

Thanks!!

(In reply to comment #4)
> Just a quick note - Michael and I looked at #5 today. We were able to
> eliminate the spurious text announcing "Current Manuals", but we can't
> remove the self-referential link without considerably more work, as it is
> part of the Drupal-based structure of that page type. I'm going to call that
> a WONTFIX for now, but will keep it in mind if/when we ever go over the page
> structure again.

Here's what I mean.  One use of the word "image" is in recipe files, when one talks about building a core "image", a core minimal "image" and so on.

The other usage is where the output of a build goes -- in tmp/deploy/images.  I like to refer to the things that get placed in that output directory as "artifacts".  Suggesting that they're somehow also "images" just seems to lead to potential confusion.

Belen, 

Regarding this...."Please note that Hob does not affect your existing configuration files, and therefore building with Hob and with the command line interface might generate different output. We are currently working on improving the interaction between BitBake and Hob (see bug 3576)."

Is what we are working on going to make it so messing with config files in Hob does affect existing configuration files?  The reason I ask is that your last part of the sample explanation is vague.  Do we want to be more specific in our note about this as to what we mean by "improving the interaction"?

I think I would cast this more in terms of the user.  For example..."You should be aware that changing configurations using Hob does not change configurations outside of Hob.  Thus, the two build environments (Hob and command line) are separate and can produce different output. The Yocto Project Team is currently working on improving the interaction between BitBake and Hob (see bug 3576)."

What you have is perfectly fine as well.  I just like to try and place the user at the center of things when possible.  It makes it more active and real to them.

Thanks,
Scott

Thanks, Robert! That makes perfect sense. We should be able to qualify the terms now to make their meaning clear.

Belen

(In reply to comment #6)
> Here's what I mean.  One use of the word "image" is in recipe files, when
> one talks about building a core "image", a core minimal "image" and so on.
> 
> The other usage is where the output of a build goes -- in tmp/deploy/images.
> I like to refer to the things that get placed in that output directory as
> "artifacts".  Suggesting that they're somehow also "images" just seems to
> lead to potential confusion.

Hi Scott,

Your corrections make perfect sense. I also agree that 'improving' is not specific enough. What we are looking to do is turn Hob fully into an interface for BitBake, which means that there will no longer be separate configurations for Hob and BitBake, but just a single BitBake configuration you can access and modify from Hob. I hope this explains.

We'll also need to remove the mention to the bug, since it has been closed. 

Thanks for the help!

Belen

(In reply to comment #7)
> Belen, 
> 
> Regarding this...."Please note that Hob does not affect your existing
> configuration files, and therefore building with Hob and with the command
> line interface might generate different output. We are currently working on
> improving the interaction between BitBake and Hob (see bug 3576)."
> 
> Is what we are working on going to make it so messing with config files in
> Hob does affect existing configuration files?  The reason I ask is that your
> last part of the sample explanation is vague.  Do we want to be more
> specific in our note about this as to what we mean by "improving the
> interaction"?
> 
> I think I would cast this more in terms of the user.  For example..."You
> should be aware that changing configurations using Hob does not change
> configurations outside of Hob.  Thus, the two build environments (Hob and
> command line) are separate and can produce different output. The Yocto
> Project Team is currently working on improving the interaction between
> BitBake and Hob (see bug 3576)."
> 
> What you have is perfectly fine as well.  I just like to try and place the
> user at the center of things when possible.  It makes it more active and
> real to them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott

To address 3, and after a chat with Scott R and Paul E, I have changed all instances of "base image" to "base image recipe". I've reserved "image" to refer to what is generated by the build process and saved to /build/tmp/deploy/images/

To address 4, I've added the following to the page: "You should be aware that changing configurations using Hob does not change configurations outside of Hob. Thus, the two build environments (Hob and command line) are separate and can produce different output."