Yes, I agree. My concern is related only to process implementation aspect, I wonder if it is technically possible.
Generally I like idea of automatic control. ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 23:21, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > Hi folks, > > Artem's proposal might simplify and make our doc tickets tracking less > error-prone. The current approach implies that a contributor keeps in mind > what needs to go to the docs. If he/she has a good memory, a doc JIRA > counterpart will be created once the contribution is accepted. But the > practice shows that the memory lets us down :) > > Another benefit of having "Docs Required" flag enabled by default, is that > Artem and Prachi can see all such tickets months and weeks before a > release, figure out details from source code contributors and complete the > docs in advance. > > -- > Denis > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:39 AM Artem Budnikov < > a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dmitry, >> >> The goal I had in mind by proposing that suggestion was to rectify the >> fact that JIRA issues for documentation are created on an ad-hoc basis, >> and often issues are created when the lack of documentation becomes an >> issue for somebody. So we need to be more proactive. >> >> I think manual tracking of issues is possible but as efficient as the >> current situation with the docs. Manual tracking will have to be shared >> between multiple contributors and performed outside of JIRA, which has >> its own limitation. If you have any suggestions for improvement without >> creating fields in JIRA, please share your thoughts. >> >> If you are concerned that it's not possible to add a field, then we >> should contact Apache Infra and find out. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Artem Budnikov >> >> >> On 18.07.2018 16:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: >> > Hi Artem, >> > >> > I sometimes receive feedback that Ignite docs has potential for >> > improvement, while I found our docs quite intuitive and simple to >> > understand. So if experienced tech writer will join community it could >> > benefit all of us, and users, of course. So you're very welcome to the >> > community! >> > >> > About idea of fields introduction I guess we will need assistance of >> Apache >> > Infra team, because Ignite shares JIRA with all other Apache project. >> And >> > I'm not sure that technical implementation of proposed process is even >> > possible without plugins. Could we consider some manual processing of >> > completed issues in relation to doc requrement? >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > >> > ср, 18 июл. 2018 г. в 15:06, Artem Budnikov < >> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com>: >> > >> >> Hi Igniters, >> >> >> >> Being a technical writer, I'm going to contribute to Ignite's >> >> documentation, and I believe documentation is an important part of >> every >> >> product, especially such a complex product as Apache Ignite. >> >> >> >> I'd like to put forward a suggestion on how to increase our chances of >> >> making Ignite documentation more comprehensive. The basic idea is to >> >> have a Jira issue with the Component field set to "Documentation" for >> >> every feature that needs to be documented. This will ensure that there >> >> are documentation issues that cover the entire product functionality. >> >> Then someone can take on an issue and contribute an article on the >> subject. >> >> >> >> This is how I envision it to work technically. A new field (checkbox) >> is >> >> added to the Apache Ignite Jira project. The checkbox indicates that >> the >> >> feature requested in this issue needs to be documented. The checkbox is >> >> selected by default. If the feature does not require documentation, >> then >> >> the author unchecks the checkbox. If it does require documentation, the >> >> author creates a related Jira issue selecting "Documentation" in the >> >> Component field, providing details on what exactly should be >> documented. >> >> >> >> The field is called "Requires documentation" or similarly. It could be >> >> also useful to create a new issue type for documentation issues >> >> exclusively. >> >> >> >> Once this is done, we'll be able to filter out >> >> >> >> 1. issues that do not require documentation, >> >> 2. issues that have related documentation tickets, and >> >> 3. issues that require documentation but have no related issues >> (which >> >> means that the author forgot to create a documentation issue for >> it). >> >> >> >> >> >> Please share your thoughts about this. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Artem Budnikov >> >> >> >> >> >>
