Were you thinking javadoc or something more? I wouldn't mind seeing us produce a javadoc site, if we aren't already doing so.
On Dec 20, 2016 9:25 AM, "zeo...@gmail.com" <zeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding documentation - while I'm not a huge fan of that approach (I > would prefer to see documentation generated from the code), I think it > could work in the short term. Having that outlined both in the coding > guidelines and on the wiki would be important. > > I agree with the comments about author != committer, and 100% code > coverage. > > Jon > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:10 AM James Sirota <jsir...@apache.org> wrote: > > > In my view the lower-level documentation that should be source controlled > > with the code belongs on github and then use case documentation and > > top-level architecture diagrams belong on the wiki. What do you think? > > > > I think if the author is not a committer and can't merge then the > reviewer > > should probably merge or the PR originator should ping the dev board to > get > > someone to merge the PR in. Does that seem reasonable to everyone? > > > > 18.12.2016, 13:10, "Kyle Richardson" <kylerichards...@gmail.com>: > > > Couple of questions/comments: > > > > > > In 2.4, we talk about Javadoc and code comments but not too much about > > the > > > user documentation. Should we, possibly in a section 4, give some > > > recommendations on what should go into the README files versus on the > > wiki? > > > This could also help the reviewer know if the change is documented > > > sufficiently. > > > > > > In 2.6, we say that 1 qualified reviewer (Apache committer or PPMC > > member) > > > other than the author of the PR must have given it a +1. In the case > > where > > > the author is not a committer (who could merge their own PR), should we > > > state that the reviewer will be responsible for the merge? > > > > > > -Kyle > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:39 PM, James Sirota <jsir...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Lets move this back to the discuss thread since it's still generating > > that > > >> many comments. Please post all your feedback and I will incorporate > it > > and > > >> put it back to a vote. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> James > > >> > > >> 16.12.2016, 16:12, "Matt Foley" <ma...@apache.org>: > > >> > +1 > > >> > > > >> > In 2.2 (follow Sun guidelines), do you want to add the notation > > “except > > >> that indents are 2 spaces instead of 4”, as Hadoop does? Or does the > > Metron > > >> community like 4-space indents? I see both in the Metron code. > > >> > > > >> > My +1 holds in either case. > > >> > --Matt > > >> > > > >> > On 12/16/16, 9:34 AM, "James Sirota" <jsir...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > I incorporated the changes to the coding guidelines from our > discuss > > >> thread. I'd like to get them voted on to make them official. > > >> > > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > > >> action?pageId=61332235 > > >> > > > >> > Please vote +1, -1, 0 > > >> > > > >> > The vote will be open for 72 hours. > > >> > > > >> > ------------------- > > >> > Thank you, > > >> > > > >> > James Sirota > > >> > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating) > > >> > jsirota AT apache DOT org > > >> > > >> ------------------- > > >> Thank you, > > >> > > >> James Sirota > > >> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating) > > >> jsirota AT apache DOT org > > > > ------------------- > > Thank you, > > > > James Sirota > > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating) > > jsirota AT apache DOT org > > > -- > > Jon > > Sent from my mobile device >
