Hi, I wanted to ask how people feel about a policy where an issue is not closed until documentation has been added to the Wiki?
Problematic issues fall roughly in two categories: * They have a generic title (add UDF for XY) an attached patch and a few code reviews without ever even mentioning what the name or usage of the new UDF is (<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-5252>) * They have a design document or description with the intended syntax but that's often not the final form so one has to look up the patch (can't find a good example right now) Both are a lot of work to document for someone who has not followed that issue. Tracking undocumented things would be got to not forget about it and to have an incentive to do it. Obviously not all things need documentation, and not all things need to be documented by the person who submitted the patch. But to make things easier for documentation people it'd be great if the issue could contain an up to date description of at least the syntax changes and configuration options etc. so that we can tidy it up and transfer it to the wiki. It's not nice to dig through patches for this. Another alternative would be to open issues like "Document HIVE-5252" but I like the other option better. What do people think? Cheers, Lars
