Open Stack

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Peeler" <jpeeler at redhat.com>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> 
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
> wrote:
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > The reviewers in Kolla tend to nit-pick the quickstart guide to death
> > during
> > reviews.  I'd like to keep that high bar in place for the QSG, because it
> > is
> > our most important piece of documentation at present.  However, when new
> > contributors see the nitpicking going on in reviews, I think they may get
> > discouraged about writing documentation for other parts of Kolla.
> >
> > I'd prefer if the core reviewers held a lower bar for docs not related to
> > the philosophy or quiickstart guide document.  We can always iterate on
> > these new documents (like the operator guide) to improve them and raise the
> > bar on their quality over time, as we have done with the quickstart guide.
> > That way contributors don't feel nitpicked to death and avoid improving the
> > documentation.
> >
> > If you are a core reveiwer and agree with this approach please +1, if not
> > please –1.
> 
> I'm fine with relaxing the reviews on documentation. However, there's
> a difference between having a missed comma versus the whole patch
> being littered with misspellings. In general in the former scenario I
> try to comment and leave the code review set at 0, hoping the
> contributor fixes it. The danger is that a 0 vote people sometimes
> miss, but it doesn't block progress.

My typical experience with (very) occasional drive by commits to operational project docs (albeit not Kolla) is that the type of nit that comes up is more typically -1 thanks for adding X, can you also add Y and Z. Before you know it a simple drive by commit to flesh out one area has become an expectation to write an entire chapter.

-Steve