Open Stack

On 1 Mar 2017, at 10:07, Alexandra Settle wrote:

> On 3/1/17, 5:58 PM, "John Dickinson" <me at not.mn> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 1 Mar 2017, at 9:52, Alexandra Settle 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.
>
>     Which docs are these? There are several different sets of docs that are hosted on docs.o.o that are managed within a project repo. Are you saying those won't get pushed to
>     docs.o.o if they are patched within a month of the cycle release?
>
> The only sets of docs that are published on the docs.o.o site that are managed in project-specific repos is the project-specific installation guides. That management is entirely up to the team themselves, but I would like to push for the integration of a “documentation review” period to ensure that those teams are reviewing their docs in their own tree.
>
> This is a preferential suggestion, not a demand. I cannot make you review your documentation at any given period.
>
> The ‘month before’ that I refer to would be for introduction of documentation and a review period. I will not stop any documentation being pushed to the repo unless, of course, it is untested and breaks the installation process.

There's the dev docs, the install guide, and the api reference. Each of these are published at docs.o.o, and each have elements that need to be up-to-date with a release.

>
>
>     >
>     > 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 This means we have released with incorrect/out-of-date documentation.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.

Overall, I really like the general concept here. It's very important to have good docs. Good docs start with the patch, and we should be encouraging the idea of "patch must have both tests and docs before landing".

On a personal note, though, I think I'll find this pretty tough. First, it's really hard for me to define when docs are "done", so it's hard to know that the docs are "right" at the time of release. Second, docs are built and published at each commit, so updating the docs "later, in a follow-on patch" is a simple thing to hope for and gives fast feedback, even after a release. (Of course the challenge is actually *doing* the patch later--see my previous paragraph.)

>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     >
>     > 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
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170301/dd13e86b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170301/dd13e86b/attachment-0001.pgp>