Open Stack

On 08/30/2013 09:22 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30 2013, Russell Bryant wrote:
>
>> 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.
This directly parallels the recent thread about more testing info in 
blueprints.
> I was discussing the subject with Anne on IRC. Ceilometer doesn't have
> any documentation stored in any external repository (yet). My point of
> view is that it's better to systematically block patches not updating
> the documentation, than to use DocImpact and cross fingers. That clearly
> didn't work for us so far.
Indeed. OpenStack does not have (and never will have) the kind of 
management that deals with these issues in a traditional engineering 
organization. And even in such an organization results can be mixed. All 
we have is gating tests and downvotes from reviewers.  Of course doing 
things in this way would require developers to estimate more time for 
completion of a feature but IMO the project as a whole would benefit 
greatly.

  -David