Open Stack

On 12/14/2015 03:42 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In the big tent, project teams are expected to maintain their own
> install guides within their projects' source tree. There's a
> conversation going on over in the docs list[1] about changing this, but
> in the meantime...
>
> Ironic (and presumably other projects) publish versioned documentation,
> which includes the install guide. For example, our kilo install guide is
> here[2]. However, there's no way to update those, as stable branch
> policy[3] only allows for important bug fixes to be backported. For
> example, this patch[4] was blocked for this reason (among others).
>
> So, I'd like to propose that in the new world, where projects maintain
> their own deployer/operator docs, that we allow documentation backports
> (or even changes that are not part of a backport, for changes that only
> make sense on the stable branch and not master). They're extremely low
> risk, and can be very useful for operators. The alternative is making
> sure people are always reading the most up-to-date docs, and in places
> that have changed, having "in kilo [...], in liberty [...]", etc, which
> is a bit of a maintenance burden.

+1 I would prefer us landing important documentation patches on stable 
branches.

>
> What do folks think? I'm happy to write up a patch for the project team
> guide if there's support for this.
>
> // jim
>
> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2015-December/008051.html
> [2] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic/kilo/deploy/install-guide.html
> [3] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html
> [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219603/
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>