On 2/3/17 5:07 am, Alexandra Settle wrote:
On 3/1/17, 5:58 PM, "John Dickinson" <m...@not.mn> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2017, at 9:52, Alexandra Settle wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to propose that we introduce a “Review documentation”
period on the release schedule.
>
> We would formulate it as a deadline, so that it fits in the schedule and
making it coincide with the RC1 deadline.
>
> For projects that are not following the milestones, we would translate
this new inclusion literally, so if you would like your project to be documented
at docs.o.o, then doc must be introduced and reviewed one month before the branch
is cut.
Which docs are these? There are several different sets of docs that are hosted on docs.o.o that are managed within a project repo. Are you saying those won't get pushed to
docs.o.o if they are patched within a month of the cycle release?
The only sets of docs that are published on the docs.o.o site that are managed
in project-specific repos is the project-specific installation guides. That
management is entirely up to the team themselves, but I would like to push for
the integration of a “documentation review” period to ensure that those teams
are reviewing their docs in their own tree.
This is a preferential suggestion, not a demand. I cannot make you review your
documentation at any given period.
The ‘month before’ that I refer to would be for introduction of documentation
and a review period. I will not stop any documentation being pushed to the repo
unless, of course, it is untested and breaks the installation process.
>
> In the last week since we released Ocata, it has become increasingly
apparent that the documentation was not updated from the development side. We were
not aware of a lot of new enhancements, features, or major bug fixes for certain
projects. This means we have released with incorrect/out-of-date documentation.
This is not only an unfortunately bad reflection on our team, but on the project
teams themselves.
>
FYI, there's a few bugs for the Configuration Reference mentioning
options for some services require updating. I've gone through the doc
and created additional bugs and included the relevant PTL and docs liaison.
> The new inclusion to the schedule may seem unnecessary, but a lot of
people rely on this and the PTL drives milestones from this schedule.
>
> From our side, I endeavor to ensure our release managers are working
harder to ping and remind doc liaisons and PTLs to ensure the documentation is
appropriately updated and working to ensure this does not happen in the future.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe:
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-docs mailing list
openstack-d...@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
