> > >> > >> Further, as we hit end of March, we would make it mandatory for features > >> to have required spec and doc labels, before the code is merged, so > >> factor in efforts for the same if not already done. > > > > > > Could you explain the point above further? Is it just the label or the > > spec/doc > > that we need merged before the patch is merged? > > > > I'll hazard a guess that the intent of the label is to indicate > availability of the doc. "Completeness" of code is being defined as > including specifications and documentation. > > I believe this has originated from maintainers meeting agreements [1] . The proposal to make a spec and documentation mandatory was submitted 3 months back and is documented, and submitted for comment @ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AFkZmRRDXRxs21GnGauieIyiIiRZ-nTEW8CPi7Gbp3g/edit?usp=sharing
The idea is, if the code is going to be released, it should have relevant documentation for users to use it, otherwise, it doesn't matter if the feature is present or not. If the feature is 'default', and there is no documentation required, just mention it, so the flags can be given. Also, if there is no general agreement about the design, it doesn't make sense to merge a feature and then someone has to redo things. For any experimental code, which we want to publish for other developers to test, who doesn't need documentation, we have 'experimental' branch, which should be used for validation. [1] - http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2017-December/054070.html
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
