I appologize, initially I misundersood proposal. I've concluded that new doc issue will be created automatically by closing original ticket, - this can be done by plugin only.
If we just introduce flag or combobox for indicate doc is required, there is no technical issues, it is defenetely possible. So +1 from my side without concerns. чт, 19 июл. 2018 г. в 22:02, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > Ok, if all our doc writers are in the agreement then let's give a couple of > days to our fellow Igniters to share alternate opinions. > > Artem, if you don't hear back by Monday then feel free to create an INFRA > ticket. > > -- > Denis > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:43 AM Prachi Garg <pg...@gridgain.com> wrote: > > > I totally agree with Denis's point - > > > > "Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is > that > > Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a > > release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete > the > > docs in advance." > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Yes, I agree. My concern is related only to process implementation > aspect, > >> I wonder if it is technically possible. > >> > >> Generally I like idea of automatic control. > >> > >> ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 23:21, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > >> > >> > Hi folks, > >> > > >> > Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets tracking less > >> > error-prone. The current approach implies that a contributor keeps in > >> mind > >> > what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good memory, a doc JIRA > >> > counterpart will be created once the contribution is accepted. But the > >> > practice shows that the memory lets us down :) > >> > > >> > Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is > >> that > >> > Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a > >> > release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete > >> the > >> > docs in advance. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Denis > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov < > >> > a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Dmitry, > >> >> > >> >> The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was to rectify > the > >> >> fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on an ad-hoc > basis, > >> >> and often issues are created when the lack of documentation becomes > an > >> >> issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. > >> >> > >> >> I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as efficient as the > >> >> current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will have to be > shared > >> >> between multiple contributors and performed outside of JIRA, which > has > >> >> its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for improvement > without > >> >> creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. > >> >> > >> >> If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a field, then we > >> >> should contact Apache Infra and find out. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Best regards, > >> >> > >> >> Artem Budnikov > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > >> >> > Hi Artem, > >> >> > > >> >> > I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has potential for > >> >> > improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive and simple to > >> >> > understand. So if experienced tech writer will join community it > >> could > >> >> > benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're very welcome to > >> the > >> >> > community! > >> >> > > >> >> > About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need assistance > of > >> >> Apache > >> >> > Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other Apache > project. > >> >> And > >> >> > I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed process is > >> even > >> >> > possible without plugins. Could we consider some manual processing > of > >> >> > completed issues in relation to doc requrement? > >> >> > > >> >> > Sincerely, > >> >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> >> > > >> >> > ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov < > >> >> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Hi Igniters, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to Ignite's > >> >> >> documentation, and I believe documentation is an important part of > >> >> every > >> >> >> product, especially such a complex product as Apache Ignite. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to increase our > chances > >> of > >> >> >> making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The basic idea is > to > >> >> >> have a Jira issue with the Component field set to "Documentation" > >> for > >> >> >> every feature that needs to be documented. This will ensure that > >> there > >> >> >> are documentation issues that cover the entire product > >> functionality. > >> >> >> Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an article on the > >> >> subject. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> This is how I envision it to work technically. A new field > >> (checkbox) > >> >> is > >> >> >> added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox indicates > that > >> >> the > >> >> >> feature requested in this issue needs to be documented. The > >> checkbox is > >> >> >> selected by default. If the feature does not require > documentation, > >> >> then > >> >> >> the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require > documentation, > >> the > >> >> >> author creates a related Jira issue selecting "Documentation" in > the > >> >> >> Component field, providing details on what exactly should be > >> >> documented. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The field is called "Requires documentation" or similarly. It > could > >> be > >> >> >> also useful to create a new issue type for documentation issues > >> >> >> exclusively. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 1. issues that do not require documentation, > >> >> >> 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, and > >> >> >> 3. issues that require documentation but have no related issues > >> >> (which > >> >> >> means that the author forgot to create a documentation issue > >> for > >> >> it). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Please share your thoughts about this. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Best regards, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Artem Budnikov > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > > > >
