Streamlining Docs: Glossary & Build Process Improvements

Hey guys! Let's dive into an important discussion about making our documentation process smoother and more contributor-friendly, focusing particularly on the huggingface and doc-builder ecosystems. We'll explore how we can lower the barriers to contributing, making it easier for everyone to get involved in improving our docs. This will involve creating a glossary for reserved words and decoupling the full build process from document changes. Let’s make our documentation more accessible and collaborative!

Glossary for Reserved Words

One of the key areas we need to address is the clarity around reserved words used in our documentation. Think about it: we're dealing with a mix of languages and tools, from Markdown and HTML to LaTeX and even Colab notebooks. This means we have keywords and specific tags that can be confusing if you're not familiar with them. To enhance documentation, it’s important to clarify what these reserved words are and where they come from. Are they from Markdown, HTML, LaTeX, or perhaps specific to Colab as a tool?

For instance, consider the [[open-in-colab]] tag mentioned in the doc-builder documentation. When you see this, it’s not immediately obvious what it does. You might have to dig around to find out that it adds a button that opens a docs page in a Colab notebook, allowing users to run the code interactively. This information is crucial but currently hidden unless you know where to look. We need a glossary that clearly defines these terms, making it easier for contributors to understand and use them correctly. This glossary should act as a central repository for all reserved words, explaining their purpose and origin, thus streamlining the documentation process. A well-defined glossary helps new contributors quickly grasp the terminology and contribute effectively, fostering a more inclusive and collaborative environment. By providing clear definitions and context, we reduce the learning curve and encourage more people to participate in improving our documentation.

Having a comprehensive glossary is more than just a convenience; it's a necessity for maintaining consistent and high-quality documentation. When contributors are unsure about the meaning of a specific tag or keyword, they may inadvertently use it incorrectly, leading to errors and inconsistencies in the documentation. This can create confusion for users and hinder their ability to effectively utilize our resources. By establishing a glossary of reserved words, we ensure that everyone is on the same page, reducing the likelihood of mistakes and promoting uniformity across all our documentation. This, in turn, enhances the overall usability and reliability of our documentation, making it a more valuable resource for our community. Furthermore, a well-maintained glossary demonstrates our commitment to transparency and clarity, fostering trust and confidence among our users and contributors. It signals that we value clear communication and are dedicated to providing the best possible documentation experience.

To make this glossary truly effective, it needs to be easily accessible and regularly updated. It should be prominently linked within our documentation and contribution guidelines, ensuring that contributors can quickly find the information they need. Additionally, we should establish a process for adding new terms to the glossary as they emerge, keeping it current and relevant. This could involve a community review process, where contributors can propose new entries and provide feedback on existing ones. By making the glossary a dynamic and evolving resource, we ensure that it remains a valuable tool for our community. Moreover, we can leverage the glossary to improve the searchability of our documentation. By tagging each entry with relevant keywords and categories, we make it easier for users to find the information they need, even if they're not familiar with the specific terminology. This enhances the overall user experience and promotes greater adoption of our resources. Ultimately, a well-crafted glossary is an investment in the long-term quality and usability of our documentation.

Decouple Full Build from Document

Another critical issue we need to address is decoupling the full build process from document changes. As highlighted in issue #545 and PR #12032, the current system can be quite cumbersome. Imagine you're trying to fix a simple typo, but the build fails because of an unrelated issue, like a missing dependency or a Python version incompatibility. That's frustrating, right? This is exactly what happened when I deep-dived into a build failure recently. It turned out that torch was missing, and I was using Python 3.13, which led to a compile error. After downgrading to Python 3.12, I encountered another error. These kinds of issues can really slow down the contribution process.

This problem isn't unique to Hugging Face. Any CNCF document, for example, that needs to be built for Kubernetes or a container runtime, might face similar challenges. What if a maintainer just wants to fix a typo? Do they really need to go through a full build process that might fail due to unrelated environment issues? This goes against our core philosophy of Usability over Performance, Simple over easy, and being contributor-friendly. We should strive to make the process as straightforward as possible. We need to think about how we can simplify the document build process and make it more accessible to contributors. If we treat documentation as code (which, in many ways, it is), we should also apply the principles of good code design, such as decoupling components. This means separating the document build from the full system build, so that minor changes don't trigger a complete rebuild.

Decoupling the build process can significantly improve the contributor experience. By isolating the document build from other system dependencies, we can ensure that simple changes, like fixing typos or clarifying explanations, can be quickly and easily merged without the risk of unrelated build failures. This not only speeds up the contribution process but also reduces the cognitive load on contributors. They can focus on the content of their changes without having to worry about the complexities of the underlying build environment. This approach aligns with our philosophy of making documentation contributor-friendly and encourages more people to participate in improving our resources. Furthermore, decoupling the build process can lead to more efficient use of resources. Full builds can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, especially for large projects. By separating the document build, we can reduce the frequency of these full builds, saving time and resources. This is particularly important for projects with frequent documentation updates, as it allows for a more agile and responsive workflow. Ultimately, decoupling the build process is a crucial step in creating a more sustainable and scalable documentation system.

Example: Spell Check and Online Preview

To illustrate how we can improve the documentation workflow, let's look at some practical examples. Consider the CNCF's tag-env-sustainability repository, which maintains a custom dictionary for spell checking. We can adopt a similar approach by building a spell check list that acts as our Glossary. This allows for quick checks using common linting or spell-checking tools, ensuring consistency and accuracy in our documentation. It’s a simple yet effective way to maintain document quality. Imagine having a tool that automatically flags misspelled words or incorrect terminology, making it easier for contributors to catch and fix errors.

Another valuable tool is online preview builds. Services like Netlify allow us to create a preview build for every pull request, enabling contributors to see exactly how their changes will look before they are merged. This is incredibly helpful for catching formatting issues or ensuring that the content flows correctly. It provides immediate feedback, making the review process more efficient and reducing the likelihood of errors making their way into the final documentation. By implementing online preview builds, we empower contributors to take ownership of their changes and ensure that they meet our quality standards. This also fosters a sense of collaboration, as reviewers can easily see and comment on the changes in a live environment. The combination of a spell check Glossary and online preview builds can significantly enhance the quality and usability of our documentation.

By adopting these practices, we can create a more robust and contributor-friendly documentation system. Let’s continue this discussion and explore how we can implement these changes to make our documentation even better!