On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:37:07AM -0400, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Luigi Toscano <ltosc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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). > > +1, ironic has been okay with backporting docs changes for a while > now. Do it! :)
Yup. The policy is about minimising the rick of regressions in running clouds. I'm fine with backporting docs changes. Feel free to add me as a reviewer (from a policy POV) Yours Tony.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
