I made some edits to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GitLab/pipeline_conversion and https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/releng/pipeline-to-gitlab.

I verified https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GitLab/Publishing_docs is complete and reflects the current state of the doc publisher. Removed the "draft" marker.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GitLab/Hosting_a_project_on_GitLab - general review, complete the document

I made a series of small edits here, and cleared some outdated TODOs. I'm not sure if it's fully complete, but I believe it more or less reflects the current state of affairs.

Blubber:

• https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/releng/blubber/-/blob/main/README.md?ref_type=heads - general review, especially the Usage section.

LGTM.

• https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Blubber/Download - link to the Usage section in the README (above) and mark the page as deprecated?

I removed the page content and left a deprecation note that links to the project README.

• https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Blubber/User_Guide - consider whether this reference will be easier to maintain if it was generated from code automatically. Then ensure it is up to date and correct.

It looks accurate, but I do not like this page. It's much too dense and mislabeled as a guide when it's really a reference.

I'm working on an MR for Blubber that introduces a JSON Schema for base validation and generates a docs/configuration.md file from the schema.

Kokkuri:

• https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/releng/kokkuri/-/blob/main/README.md?ref_type=heads - general review
• https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/releng/kokkuri/-/blob/main/includes/images.yaml?ref_type=heads - review code comments

Both of these look good to me.

This is great, thank you everyone!

In T352259#9519540, @dduvall wrote:

• https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Blubber/User_Guide - consider whether this reference will be easier to maintain if it was generated from code automatically. Then ensure it is up to date and correct.

It looks accurate, but I do not like this page. It's much too dense and mislabeled as a guide when it's really a reference.

I'm working on an MR for Blubber that introduces a JSON Schema for base validation and generates a docs/configuration.md file from the schema.

@dduvall do you think it makes sense for me to rename the User Guide (to Reference or similar) and review it slightly? Or should we wait for your mechanism of generating docs/configuration.md to be ready and deprecate the User Guide entirely when it's available?

Helm-related pages have been confirmed correct and up-to-date by @kamila

In T352259#9520369, @KBach wrote:

@dduvall do you think it makes sense for me to rename the User Guide (to Reference or similar) and review it slightly? Or should we wait for your mechanism of generating docs/configuration.md to be ready and deprecate the User Guide entirely when it's available?

@dancy reviewed my MR (thanks, Ahmon!) and I just merged it. Does this look like a good start? We can add more property descriptions if that's helpful but this should be a more maintainable source of truth. Moreover, it is actually used to validate config now.

We can even move some of the regex based validations into the schema and render those patterns into the document. There are some validations which have to stay in Go due to the complexity, but not many.

https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/releng/blubber/-/blob/main/docs/configuration.md?ref_type=heads

Renaming/moving the guide page to Reference and linking to this upstream doc makes sense to me. I'll go ahead and do that.

Additionally for Blubber, I deprecated the Getting Started pages and Deployment Pipeline documentation and removed them from the portal. I renamed Usage to Examples and linked to the project examples folder which contains acceptance tests with descriptions for people. I added a Reference page and portal item and linked to the project's docs/configuration.md file.

The only weird thing about the Blubber portal now is that all items link to pages which then redirect to external sources. It would be nice to figure out whether the portal template can play nicely with external links but I couldn't get them to work.