feature process should require release notes/docs
Josh Boyer
jwboyer at gmail.com
Tue Feb 5 22:40:29 UTC 2008
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:29:07 +0000
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 12:07:35PM -0800, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> > In preparation to asking FESCo to amend the feature process, I'd like to
> > find out if there is going to be an uprising from y'all against the
> > idea.
> >
> > Currently, the feature process does not specifically require release
> > notes or documentation, nor provide for FESCo to block a feature because
> > of missing or poor feature documentation. We think the feature
> > policy[1] should be amended[2] to require this.
>
> I don't like this idea. While I'm perfectly happy to write release notes
> and/or short docs for my features in Fedora 9, the nature of some of the
> work I'm doing means that it is hard/impossible to write any meaningful
> docs until shortly before release. To have the feature lingering unapproved
> in limbo until the docs are written is not helpful.
>
> By all means revoke features which don't have docs written at time of
> release, but making it a requirement for initial approval is going to
> discourage submission of features., Or it'll force me to just make up
> some random garbage for docs to get past the approval process, and then
> re-write them again once the work is actually done.
Odd. That's not how I read the proposal, but I agree with what you are
saying. Documentation should probably be required before release, but
probably not before being approved. There should be a
That adds another step in the Feature process to go back and re-review
everything to make sure it has docs though. Hrm..
josh
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list