On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 15:31:50 CEST Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: > Hi all, > > lately I realized that docs for two of the features I was working on during > Newton cycle are absent from Ironic's new install guide [0]. This is my > fault, and I am sorry for missing that out. Currently I am working on > adding those pieces. > > [...] > > Given the above, should those doc amendments be proposed as backports to > stable/newton once they are merged in master? What is the general policy > for backporting documentation amendments/fixes?
The general rules are: http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html "Note - It’s nevertheless allowed to backport fixes for other bugs if their safety can be easily proved. For example, documentation fixes, debug log message typo corrections, test only changes, patches that enhance test coverage, configuration file content fixes can apply to all supported branches. For those types of backports, stable maintainers will decide on case by case basis. " I would consider "missing documentation for a(n important) feature" as a bug, and I would try to backport it - at least for the project I'm involved in (Sahara). -- Luigi __________________________________________________________________________ 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
