On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Luigi Toscano <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 15:31:50 CEST Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> lately I realized that docs for two of the features I was working on during >> Newton cycle are absent from Ironic's new install guide [0]. This is my >> fault, and I am sorry for missing that out. Currently I am working on >> adding those pieces. >> >> [...] >> >> Given the above, should those doc amendments be proposed as backports to >> stable/newton once they are merged in master? What is the general policy >> for backporting documentation amendments/fixes? > > The general rules are: > http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html > > "Note - It’s nevertheless allowed to backport fixes for other bugs if their > safety can be easily proved. For example, documentation fixes, debug log > message typo corrections, test only changes, patches that enhance test > coverage, configuration file content fixes can apply to all supported > branches. For those types of backports, stable maintainers will decide on case > by case basis. " > > I would consider "missing documentation for a(n important) feature" as a bug, > and I would try to backport it - at least for the project I'm involved in > (Sahara).
+1, ironic has been okay with backporting docs changes for a while now. Do it! :) // jim __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
