Hi all, In the big tent, project teams are expected to maintain their own install guides within their projects' source tree. There's a conversation going on over in the docs list[1] about changing this, but in the meantime...
Ironic (and presumably other projects) publish versioned documentation, which includes the install guide. For example, our kilo install guide is here[2]. However, there's no way to update those, as stable branch policy[3] only allows for important bug fixes to be backported. For example, this patch[4] was blocked for this reason (among others). So, I'd like to propose that in the new world, where projects maintain their own deployer/operator docs, that we allow documentation backports (or even changes that are not part of a backport, for changes that only make sense on the stable branch and not master). They're extremely low risk, and can be very useful for operators. The alternative is making sure people are always reading the most up-to-date docs, and in places that have changed, having "in kilo [...], in liberty [...]", etc, which is a bit of a maintenance burden. What do folks think? I'm happy to write up a patch for the project team guide if there's support for this. // jim [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2015-December/008051.html [2] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic/kilo/deploy/install-guide.html [3] http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219603/ __________________________________________________________________________ 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
