cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Brockmeier <>
Subject Re: [DOCS] Documentation focused committers, and review processes
Date Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:59:16 GMT
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013, at 02:31 PM, Jessica Tomechak wrote:
> I'm just wondering how we want to handle the case where review never
> happens, or not in time for a scheduled release. I agree with Joe that
> there's no point reverting an entire feature just because its docs were
> not reviewed, but I'd be in favor of either pulling out the docs or at least
> stamping them with some kind of caveat like "Preliminary draft, accuracy
> not guaranteed." What do folks think about that?

I'm concerned that would be putting a lot of responsibility on
documentation contributors to continually follow up and verify whether
something was reviewed. 

If we wanted to, I suppose we could include "draft" on sections that are
new and need review, and ask the reviewer to remove that. Not sure that
is desirable, though - If there was a vote on something like that, I'd
probably +0 it: I don't feel strongly enough to -1 it, but it doesn't
seem necessary to me either. 

It's my hope that folks who are developing features care enough to
eventually find time to review the docs written for their features and
any pain points we're currently experiencing are largely related to
finding a good rhythm for working on time-based releases. 


Joe Brockmeier
Twitter: @jzb

View raw message