Martin Aspeli wrote:
Israel Saeta Pérez wrote:

I don't mind who actually identifies documentation that would need to
be updated, if the PLIP submitter or the Framework Team, but I'm
convinced every new feature or change should be reflected into the
existing documentation, which is IMO as important as code and

If we don't document new features as we introduce them, we will end up
with obsolete documentation, as is already happening. If we don't like
raising the bar for submitting PLIPs, at least we should commit to
(really) introduce documentation in the release checklist:

I'm sure the Documentation Team will be happy to collaborate with the
Framework Team to get things done timely.

I am not convinced that the Documentation Team at this point has enough structure (both in terms of the actual corpus of documentation, and the team itself) to facilitate this kind of process. There's been some very encouraging movements on the doc list in the last few weeks, but like Raphael, I'd be worried about this clogging up a process that's already stretching the current team.

I do agree that documentation should be part of PLIPs. One simple thing would be to just have a free-text on the PLIP that identifies the documentation that is either required or extant for the PLIP, so that people who look at the PLIP later can find a pointer to where there's more documentation.

However, I think it's too much to ask at this point that the framework team or PLIP authors go through all existing documentation looking for things that may be outdated.

I agree that the current structure of plone docs makes it too hard to find docs that need changing.
A ooncise manual of the api would be more manageable though right?
I'd suggest waiting for that.

Framework-Team mailing list

Reply via email to