I totally agree with Denis's point - "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."
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >
