[openstack-dev] [Ceilometer] Documentation and patches
davanum at gmail.com
Fri Aug 30 13:22:57 UTC 2013
How about mandating that when one adds a DocImpact in a review it should
have a url to an etherpad/wiki with sufficient information for the doc
team? yes, +1 to let docs team figure out where to fit it into existing
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 08/30/2013 08:39 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> > Hi team,
> > We need to get better at documentation. We are terrible at it. We
> > let code go through the gates knowing that our documentation isn't
> > up to date. We have features implemented 6 months ago still not
> > documented. Nobody's going to do it for us.
> > Therefore I strongly suggest that as soon as you spot that the
> > documentation must be updated to reflect any change, you score -1
> > the patchset to oblige the submitting developer to write some
> > prose.
> This is something we could get better at across all of OpenStack.
> I've been thinking about proposing requiring docs *somewhere* for
> everything that affects docs. For small stuff, it could be explaining
> it especially well in the commit message. For larger stuff, it could
> be covered on the blueprint or wiki page.
> I think at the least, we could provide some of the core information so
> that the docs team is left with figuring out where best to fit it into
> the existing guides, as opposed to generating the content from scratch.
> - --
> Russell Bryant
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev