[openstack-dev] [ironic][docs] What is the policy for backporting docs changes to stable branches?

Jim Rollenhagen jim at jimrollenhagen.com
Wed Oct 5 13:37:07 UTC 2016


On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Luigi Toscano <ltoscano at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 15:31:50 CEST Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> lately I realized that docs for two of the features I was working on during
>> Newton cycle are absent from Ironic's new install guide [0]. This is my
>> fault, and I am sorry for missing that out. Currently I am working on
>> adding those pieces.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Given the above, should those doc amendments be proposed as backports to
>> stable/newton once they are merged in master? What is the general policy
>> for backporting documentation amendments/fixes?
>
> The general rules are:
> http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html
>
> "Note - It’s nevertheless allowed to backport fixes for other bugs if their
> safety can be easily proved. For example, documentation fixes, debug log
> message typo corrections, test only changes, patches that enhance test
> coverage, configuration file content fixes can apply to all supported
> branches. For those types of backports, stable maintainers will decide on case
> by case basis. "
>
> I would consider "missing documentation for a(n important) feature" as a bug,
> and I would try to backport it - at least for the project I'm involved in
> (Sahara).

+1, ironic has been okay with backporting docs changes for a while
now. Do it! :)

// jim



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list