[openstack-dev] [kolla][vote] Nit-picking documentation changes
alicja.kwasniewska at intel.com
Thu Apr 14 10:46:24 UTC 2016
+1 to approach suggested by sdake.
Furthermore, I think it would be good if -1/0/+1 only reflects logical meaning of reviewed docs while still providing some suggestions on improving spelling and grammar in comment even if we +1 given patch.
From: Martin André [mailto:martin.andre at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:03 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][vote] Nit-picking documentation changes
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com<mailto:sgordon at redhat.com>> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Peeler" <jpeeler at redhat.com<mailto:jpeeler at redhat.com>>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com<mailto:stdake at cisco.com>>
> > 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.
That's because you're a native speaker and you write proper English to begin with :)
We should be asking ourselves this simple question when reviewing documentation patch "does it make the documentation better?". Often the answer is yes, that's why I'm trying to ask for additional improvements in follow-up patches.
Regarding spelling or a grammatical mistakes, why not fix it now while it's still hot when we spot one in the new documentation that's being written? It's more time consuming to fix it later. If needed a native speaker can take over the patch and correct English.
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStackemail@example.com?subject:unsubscribe>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev