On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 17:26 -0800, Ned Bass wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:12:40AM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote: > > > > I would prefer to see a fix immediately rather than someone filing a > > ticket to describe the fix, since the documentation fix should be > > self-describing. However, if there is a problem that isn't immediately > > resolved then a Jira ticket should be submitted in order to track the > > defect and allow assigning the work to someone. > > LUDOC-11 seems to be a catch-all issue for submitting fixes to minor > problems like typos. However it sounds like you're saying we can bypass > Jira altogether for such patches. That would be nice; linking to a > ticket with no useful content doesn't serve any purpose that I can see. > > The "Making changes to the Lustre Manual source" article currently > instructs the reader to "file an LUDOC bug for change tracking in Jira" > as the first step. To avoid discouraging submission of minor fixes, > perhaps a more lightweight process for that case should be covered > first. In particular, say either that minor fixes should reference > LUDOC-11 in the summary, or just omit the Jira reference altogether, > whichever is appropriate. >
I've introduced a procedure for minor changes on the page: http://wiki.whamcloud.com/display/PUB/Making+changes+to+the+Lustre +Manual+source This includes a cut-and-paste commit message to get people started. My reasons including an arguably redundant issue (LUDOC-11) are: - it creates consistent submission policy across the different projects. - it gives an opportunity to easily measure minor changes cheers, Richard -- richard.henw...@intel.com High Performance Data Division _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss