On 09/05/16 22:57, Matt Kassawara wrote:
> At each summit, I speak with a variety of developers from different
> projects about the apparent lack of contributions to the central
> documentation. At previous summits, the most common complaint involved
> using DocBook. After converting most of the do
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Matt Kassawara
wrote:
> At each summit, I speak with a variety of developers from different
> projects about the apparent lack of contributions to the central
> documentation. At previous summits, the most common complaint involved
> using DocBook. After converti
On 2016-05-12 15:39, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-05-12 07:33:35 -0600 (-0600), Matt Kassawara wrote:
> [...]
>> I'm also not a fan of option 3 because it trades one kind of technical debt
>> for another. However, one could argue that some (relevant) content is
>> better than no (or defunct) con
On 2016-05-12 07:33:35 -0600 (-0600), Matt Kassawara wrote:
[...]
> I'm also not a fan of option 3 because it trades one kind of technical debt
> for another. However, one could argue that some (relevant) content is
> better than no (or defunct) content. Interestingly, option 3 also reflects
> what
I'm also not a fan of option 3 because it trades one kind of technical debt
for another. However, one could argue that some (relevant) content is
better than no (or defunct) content. Interestingly, option 3 also reflects
what ultimately happens if projects decide to maintain all documentation in
th
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Joseph Robinson
wrote:
> Hi All, One reply inline:
>
> On 11/05/2016, 7:33 AM, "Lana Brindley" wrote:
>
>>On 10/05/16 20:08, Julien Danjou wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 09 2016, Matt Kassawara wrote:
>>>
So, before developer frustrations drive some or all projects t
Hi All, One reply inline:
On 11/05/2016, 7:33 AM, "Lana Brindley" wrote:
>On 10/05/16 20:08, Julien Danjou wrote:
>> On Mon, May 09 2016, Matt Kassawara wrote:
>>
>>> So, before developer frustrations drive some or all projects to move
>>> their documentation in-tree which which negatively impac
On 10/05/16 20:08, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Mon, May 09 2016, Matt Kassawara wrote:
>
>> So, before developer frustrations drive some or all projects to move
>> their documentation in-tree which which negatively impacts the goal of
>> presenting a coherent product, I suggest establishing an agree
Julien,
Project or framework... regardless of the word, consumers of OpenStack
(without additional knowledge) see it as a single entity. Anyway,
especially after implementing the big tent, the documentation team is not
large enough to assign one or more people to manage documentation in each
proje
On Mon, May 09 2016, Matt Kassawara wrote:
> So, before developer frustrations drive some or all projects to move
> their documentation in-tree which which negatively impacts the goal of
> presenting a coherent product, I suggest establishing an agreement
> between developers and the documentation
On 09/05/16 22:57, Matt Kassawara wrote:
> At each summit, I speak with a variety of developers from different
> projects about the apparent lack of contributions to the central
> documentation. At previous summits, the most common complaint involved
> using DocBook. After converting most of the do
On 10/05/16 07:40, Matt Kassawara wrote:
> At each summit, I speak with a variety of developers from different projects
> about the apparent lack of contributions to the central documentation. At
> previous summits, the most common complaint involved using DocBook. After
> converting most of the
Matt Kassawara wrote:
> At each summit, I speak with a variety of developers from different projects
> about the apparent lack of contributions to the central documentation. At
> previous summits, the most common complaint involved using DocBook. After
> converting most of the documentation to RST
13 matches
Mail list logo
