Le 2014-10-06 05:26, Tom Fifield a écrit :
On 04/10/14 04:03, Nick Chase wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Stefano Maffulli
<stef...@openstack.org
<mailto:stef...@openstack.org>> wrote:
> 1. Pick an existing topic or create a new topic. For new
topics,
we're
> primarily interested in deployment scenarios.
> 2. Develop content (text and/or diagrams) in a format that
supports at
> least basic markup (e.g., titles, paragraphs, lists, etc.).
> 3. Provide a link to the content (e.g., gist on github.com
<http://github.com>, wiki page,
> blog post, etc.) under the associated topic.
Points 1-3 seem to be oriented at removing Launchpad from the
equation.
Is that all there is? I guess it makes sense to remove obstacles,
although editing the wiki (since it requires a launchpad account
anyway)
may not be the best way to track progress and see assignments.
No, really, the main change is in step 5. Launchpad isn't the
problem,
as far as we can tell; Docbook is.
Hi Nick,
As best I can tell - 'step 5' has been in place for at least the last
few summits at least, so this is not a change :) We have had a policy
where anyone can dump text in bug reports and we'll wrangle it. This
has
been popular, see eg Marco Cossoni's contributions, but in my opinion
not widely enough communicated - so thanks for your efforts.
We actually have another way to work with developers, although it's
been only available for the new HOT guide. This guide is temporary, it
will become a part of the user guide. The interesting point is that it's
written in RST, and uses gerrit for reviews. So far we've had 2 core
members of the heat team contributing content, and this content has been
reviewed by other members of the team.
The devs patches focused on content, not on the form of the content. I
suggested to accept the patches rapidly - as long as they're technically
correct - and to rework them later (what I've started to do a couple
days ago). The fact that we're using gerrit and that the developers
review each other work makes me more comfortable with the quality of the
content.
I'd really like to see this process extended to a larger part of the
documentation, although this might not be needed everywhere.
I had this workflow in mind:
* a dev sends a review to a temporary repo
* other devs can validate the information, and give their +1 when the
patch is ready
* a doc reviewer either requests more technical detail, or gives his
+2/accept
* the doc team reworks the patch and integrates it to the doc
repository
I really think that the process worked for the HOT guide, and I'm
convinced that it could work for other parts of the doc (Cinder and
Neutron drivers doc for instance).
As a side note, we have a tool that converts RST to docbook. The hot
guide is automatically built using this tool
(http://docs.openstack.org/hot-guide/content/hot_guide_hot-guide.html).
Gauvain
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
