Excerpts from Alexandra Settle's message of 2017-03-02 14:29:07 +0000: > > > From: Anne Gentle <annegen...@justwriteclick.com> > Date: Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 2:16 PM > To: Alexandra Settle <a.set...@outlook.com> > Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>, "openstack-d...@lists.openstack.org" > <openstack-d...@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [OpenStack-docs] [docs][release][ptl] Adding docs to the release > schedule > > > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexandra Settle > <a.set...@outlook.com<mailto:a.set...@outlook.com>> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to propose that we introduce a “Review documentation” period on > the release schedule. > > We would formulate it as a deadline, so that it fits in the schedule and > making it coincide with the RC1 deadline. > > For projects that are not following the milestones, we would translate this > new inclusion literally, so if you would like your project to be documented > at docs.o.o, then doc must be introduced and reviewed one month before the > branch is cut. > > I like this idea, and it can align certain docs with string freeze logically. > > I think the docs that are governed with this set of rules should be scoped > only to those that are synched with a release, namely the Configuration > Reference, Networking Guide, and Install Guides. [1] > > For reference, those are the guides that would best align with "common cycle > with development milestones." [2] > > Scope this proposal to the released guides, clarify which repo those will be > in, who can review and merge, and precisely when the cutoff is, and you're > onto something here. Plus, I can hear the translation teams cheering. :) > > > I completely agree with everything here :) my only question is, what do you > mean by “clarify which repo those will be in”? I had no intention of moving > documentation with this suggestion Install guides either in openstack-manuals > or their own $project repos :) > > Next question – since there doesn’t appear to be a huge ‘no don’t do the > thing’ coming from the dev list at this point, how and where do we include > this new release information? Here? > https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/release-management.html#release-1 > > Anne > > > 1. > https://docs.openstack.org/contributor-guide/blueprints-and-specs.html#release-specific-documentation > > 2. > https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/release-management.html#common-cycle-with-development-milestones > > > In the last week since we released Ocata, it has become increasingly apparent > that the documentation was not updated from the development side. We were not > aware of a lot of new enhancements, features, or major bug fixes for certain > projects. This means we have released with incorrect/out-of-date > documentation. This is not only an unfortunately bad reflection on our team, > but on the project teams themselves. > > The new inclusion to the schedule may seem unnecessary, but a lot of people > rely on this and the PTL drives milestones from this schedule. > > From our side, I endeavor to ensure our release managers are working harder > to ping and remind doc liaisons and PTLs to ensure the documentation is > appropriately updated and working to ensure this does not happen in the > future. > > Thanks, > > Alex >
As Thierry pointed out, we do need to consider the fact that more projects are using the cycle-with-intermediary process, so although we might tie dates to milestones we need to be careful that projects not tagging milestones are still covered in any processes. Based on a similar discussion we had with the i18n team at the PTG, I think a good first step here is to document the agreement by writing a governance tag with a name like doc:managed. The tag description is the place to write down the answers to the questions from this thread. For example, it would list the manuals that are in scope, what portion of the work the docs team will take on (initial writing? reviews?), and what portion of the work the project team needs to provide (contributing updates when major related happen in the code, having a liaison, and a "checkup" at a date specified near the end of the cycle). If there are any constraints about which projects can apply, those should be documented, too. Maybe "independent" projects (not following the release cycle) are not candidates, for example. The tag application process section should cover who can propose a tag, and who needs to approve it. In this case, I would think the project team PTL and docs PTL should both agree, after having the conversation to ensure there is full understanding about the expectations. It sounds a bit formal, but it shouldn't be a long conversation in most cases and the structured process will help reduce miscommunication. After the tag is documented, the release team can add any dates to the schedule and include reminders in the regular countdown emails. That way we have one place for folks to go to keep up with the cycle rhythm. I can help with an initial draft of the tag document, if you like. Doug __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
