On 08/30/2013 09:22 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30 2013, Russell Bryant wrote:
This is something we could get better at across all of OpenStack.
I've been thinking about proposing requiring docs *somewhere* for
everything that affects docs. For small stuff, it could be explaining
it especially well in the commit message. For larger stuff, it could
be covered on the blueprint or wiki page.
I think at the least, we could provide some of the core information so
that the docs team is left with figuring out where best to fit it into
the existing guides, as opposed to generating the content from scratch.
This directly parallels the recent thread about more testing info in
blueprints.
I was discussing the subject with Anne on IRC. Ceilometer doesn't have
any documentation stored in any external repository (yet). My point of
view is that it's better to systematically block patches not updating
the documentation, than to use DocImpact and cross fingers. That clearly
didn't work for us so far.
Indeed. OpenStack does not have (and never will have) the kind of
management that deals with these issues in a traditional engineering
organization. And even in such an organization results can be mixed. All
we have is gating tests and downvotes from reviewers. Of course doing
things in this way would require developers to estimate more time for
completion of a feature but IMO the project as a whole would benefit
greatly.
-David
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
