On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:33:23PM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote: > > We do have functional spec. What exactly are we demanding for ? > > Ideally something that actually gives a "how to use this feature" > bare-bones framework to write docs off of. If the FS takes care of that, > that's fine - but I'm not sure that the FSes are being updated after a > feature has landed with a "here's some guidance on actually *using* the > feature." > > It's fine by me if we ask for the FS to be updated with this as the > feature lands into master, rather than having a separate README.
+1 to updating the FS with usage details. That helps with both docs, and to make the FS useful for a reference in the future (i.e.: reflects the implementation of the design, not the design before the implementation). > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:j...@zonker.net] > > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 8:49 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DOCS] More OSS writers needed > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > > > We discussed this in the March 20 IRC meeting [1] (see the "# 4. > > > Active Feature > > > Release: Docs Status #" section). If someone wants to propose this as > > > a feature merge requirement, I'd +1 it. As long as we're not being > > > too onerous about it, even simple descriptions help. > > > > Argh. My bad. I'll send that out today. And yes, all I would ask is a > > simple readme that doc authors can work off of. > > > > Best, > > > > jzb > > -- > > Joe Brockmeier > > j...@zonker.net > > Twitter: @jzb > > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ > > > Best, > > jzb > -- > Joe Brockmeier > j...@zonker.net > Twitter: @jzb > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ >
