Open Stack

On 3/2/17, 4:08 PM, "Doug Hellmann" <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:

    Excerpts from Alexandra Settle's message of 2017-03-02 14:29:07 +0000:
    > 
    > 
    > From: Anne Gentle <annegentle at justwriteclick.com>
    > Date: Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 2:16 PM
    > To: Alexandra Settle <a.settle at outlook.com>
    > Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>, "openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org" <openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org>
    > Subject: Re: [OpenStack-docs] [docs][release][ptl] Adding docs to the release schedule
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexandra Settle <a.settle at outlook.com<mailto:a.settle at outlook.com>> wrote:
    > Hi everyone,
    > 
    > I would like to propose that we introduce a “Review documentation” period on the release schedule.
    > 
    > We would formulate it as a deadline, so that it fits in the schedule and making it coincide with the RC1 deadline.
    > 
    > For projects that are not following the milestones, we would translate this new inclusion literally, so if you would like your project to be documented at docs.o.o, then doc must be introduced and reviewed one month before the branch is cut.
    > 
    > I like this idea, and it can align certain docs with string freeze logically.
    > 
    > I think the docs that are governed with this set of rules should be scoped only to those that are synched with a release, namely the Configuration Reference, Networking Guide, and Install Guides. [1]
    > 
    > For reference, those are the guides that would best align with "common cycle with development milestones." [2]
    > 
    > Scope this proposal to the released guides, clarify which repo those will be in, who can review and merge, and precisely when the cutoff is, and you're onto something here. Plus, I can hear the translation teams cheering. :)
    > 
    > 
    > I completely agree with everything here :) my only question is, what do you mean by “clarify which repo those will be in”? I had no intention of moving documentation with this suggestion Install guides either in openstack-manuals or their own $project repos :)
    > 
    > Next question – since there doesn’t appear to be a huge ‘no don’t do the thing’ coming from the dev list at this point, how and where do we include this new release information? Here? https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/release-management.html#release-1
    > 
    > Anne
    > 
    > 
    > 1. https://docs.openstack.org/contributor-guide/blueprints-and-specs.html#release-specific-documentation
    > 
    > 2. https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/release-management.html#common-cycle-with-development-milestones
    > 
    > 
    > In the last week since we released Ocata, it has become increasingly apparent that the documentation was not updated from the development side. We were not aware of a lot of new enhancements, features, or major bug fixes for certain projects. This means we have released with incorrect/out-of-date documentation. This is not only an unfortunately bad reflection on our team, but on the project teams themselves.
    > 
    > The new inclusion to the schedule may seem unnecessary, but a lot of people rely on this and the PTL drives milestones from this schedule.
    > 
    > From our side, I endeavor to ensure our release managers are working harder to ping and remind doc liaisons and PTLs to ensure the documentation is appropriately updated and working to ensure this does not happen in the future.
    > 
    > Thanks,
    > 
    > Alex
    > 
    
    As Thierry pointed out, we do need to consider the fact that more
    projects are using the cycle-with-intermediary process, so although
    we might tie dates to milestones we need to be careful that projects
    not tagging milestones are still covered in any processes.
    
    Based on a similar discussion we had with the i18n team at the PTG,
    I think a good first step here is to document the agreement by
    writing a governance tag with a name like doc:managed. The tag
    description is the place to write down the answers to the questions
    from this thread.
    
    For example, it would list the manuals that are in scope, what
    portion of the work the docs team will take on (initial writing?
    reviews?), and what portion of the work the project team needs to
    provide (contributing updates when major related happen in the code,
    having a liaison, and a "checkup" at a date specified near the end
    of the cycle). If there are any constraints about which projects
    can apply, those should be documented, too. Maybe "independent"
    projects (not following the release cycle) are not candidates, for
    example.
    
    The tag application process section should cover who can propose a
    tag, and who needs to approve it. In this case, I would think the
    project team PTL and docs PTL should both agree, after having the
    conversation to ensure there is full understanding about the
    expectations. It sounds a bit formal, but it shouldn't be a long
    conversation in most cases and the structured process will help
    reduce miscommunication.
    
    After the tag is documented, the release team can add any dates to
    the schedule and include reminders in the regular countdown emails.
    That way we have one place for folks to go to keep up with the cycle
    rhythm.
    
    I can help with an initial draft of the tag document, if you like.

    Doug


Doug – this would be really helpful. Thank you :) it also makes sense that we sync up with a similar process to the I18n team.

I would just like to check rather than assume, this would be a TC tag? https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/index.html 

Alex

    
    __________________________________________________________________________
    OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
    Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
    http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev