On 3/2/17, 4:08 PM, "Doug Hellmann" <[email protected]> wrote:
Excerpts from Alexandra Settle's message of 2017-03-02 14:29:07 +0000:
>
>
> From: Anne Gentle <[email protected]>
> Date: Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 2:16 PM
> To: Alexandra Settle <[email protected]>
> Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack-docs] [docs][release][ptl] Adding docs to the
release schedule
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexandra Settle
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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.
>
> I like this idea, and it can align certain docs with string freeze
logically.
>
> I think the docs that are governed with this set of rules should be
scoped only to those that are synched with a release, namely the Configuration
Reference, Networking Guide, and Install Guides. [1]
>
> For reference, those are the guides that would best align with "common
cycle with development milestones." [2]
>
> Scope this proposal to the released guides, clarify which repo those will
be in, who can review and merge, and precisely when the cutoff is, and you're
onto something here. Plus, I can hear the translation teams cheering. :)
>
>
> I completely agree with everything here :) my only question is, what do
you mean by “clarify which repo those will be in”? I had no intention of moving
documentation with this suggestion Install guides either in openstack-manuals
or their own $project repos :)
>
> Next question – since there doesn’t appear to be a huge ‘no don’t do the
thing’ coming from the dev list at this point, how and where do we include this
new release information? Here?
https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/release-management.html#release-1
>
> Anne
>
>
> 1.
https://docs.openstack.org/contributor-guide/blueprints-and-specs.html#release-specific-documentation
>
> 2.
https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/release-management.html#common-cycle-with-development-milestones
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
As Thierry pointed out, we do need to consider the fact that more
projects are using the cycle-with-intermediary process, so although
we might tie dates to milestones we need to be careful that projects
not tagging milestones are still covered in any processes.
Based on a similar discussion we had with the i18n team at the PTG,
I think a good first step here is to document the agreement by
writing a governance tag with a name like doc:managed. The tag
description is the place to write down the answers to the questions
from this thread.
For example, it would list the manuals that are in scope, what
portion of the work the docs team will take on (initial writing?
reviews?), and what portion of the work the project team needs to
provide (contributing updates when major related happen in the code,
having a liaison, and a "checkup" at a date specified near the end
of the cycle). If there are any constraints about which projects
can apply, those should be documented, too. Maybe "independent"
projects (not following the release cycle) are not candidates, for
example.
The tag application process section should cover who can propose a
tag, and who needs to approve it. In this case, I would think the
project team PTL and docs PTL should both agree, after having the
conversation to ensure there is full understanding about the
expectations. It sounds a bit formal, but it shouldn't be a long
conversation in most cases and the structured process will help
reduce miscommunication.
After the tag is documented, the release team can add any dates to
the schedule and include reminders in the regular countdown emails.
That way we have one place for folks to go to keep up with the cycle
rhythm.
I can help with an initial draft of the tag document, if you like.
Doug
Doug – this would be really helpful. Thank you :) it also makes sense that we
sync up with a similar process to the I18n team.
I would just like to check rather than assume, this would be a TC tag?
https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/index.html
Alex
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
