I agree completely about using JIRA for documentation and about adding Documentation as an Issue Type (looks like JIRA has such a predefined type that we have not enabled within Apache cTAKES JIRA)
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Miller Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Proposal: Using JIRA to track and request changes to documentation Sounds like a good idea to me. Good for tracking major issues, especially for targeting future releases and making sure we get the things done we say we will. Unless there is any way this dramatically violates some convention I don't see why not! Tim On 12/04/2013 03:11 PM, Andrew McMurry wrote: > Hi all > I'll have an update about the VM situation shortly (positive news) but in the > meantime I propose a new issue type in JIRA: doc. > > The ctakes docs are very good, and James deserves a lot of credit. > User docs are as important as code, sometimes even more so. > It is therefore appropriate to track how documentation is being updated with > release versions. > > Example of DOC issues worth tracking in JIRA: > * "Confluence home page still refers to version 3.0 by default" > * "User FAQ should state recommended JVM memory size" > * "User FAQ should point to UMLS setup instructions" > > As an added benefit, each time we do a release we can see if the docs need to > be updated accordingly. > I am *NOT* proposing that every change to documentation requires a JIRA > ticket. > But we should have a mechanism to record doc issues. > > Do you agree with the proposal? > > --AndyMC
