On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:51 AM, John Spray <jspray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017, Patrick Donnelly wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> > In the meantime, we can also avoid making the problem worse by requiring >>>> > that all pull requests include any relevant documentation updates. This >>>> > means (1) helping educate contributors that doc updates are needed, (2) >>>> > helping maintainers and reviewers remember that doc updates are part of >>>> > the merge criteria (it will likely take a bit of time before this is >>>> > second nature), and (3) generally inducing developers to become aware of >>>> > the documentation that exists so that they know what needs to be updated >>>> > when they make a change. >>>> >>>> There was a joke to add a bot which automatically fails PRs for no >>>> documentation but I think there is an way to make that work in a >>>> reasonable way. Perhaps the bot could simply comment on all PRs >>>> touching src/ that documentation is required and where to look, and >>>> then fails a doc check. A developer must comment on the PR to say it >>>> passes documentation requirements before the bot changes the check to >>>> pass. >>>> >>>> This addresses all three points in an automatic way. >>> >>> This is a great idea. Greg brought up the idea of a bot but we >>> didn't think of a "docs ok"-type comment to make it happy. >>> >>> Anybody interested in coding it up? >>> >>> Piotr makes a good point about config_opts.h, although that problem is >>> about to go away (or at least change) with John's config update: >>> >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/16211 >>> >>> (Config options will be documented in the code where the schema is >>> defined, and docs.ceph.com .rst will eventually be auto-generated from >>> that.) >> >> >> Separate to the discussion of bots, here's a proposed change to the >> SubmittingPatches.rst to formalize the expectation that submitters >> make doc changes in their PRs. > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/16394 was meant to go here, I think. :) Correct! I like to throw the mistakes out there every once in a while to check someone is paying attention :-) John > -Greg > >> >> The twist here is that in addition to requiring submitters to make >> changes, there is a responsibility on the component tech leads to >> ensure there is a proper place for doc changes to go. That means that >> if someone comes with a change to a completely undocumented area of >> functionality, then it is not the submitter's responsibility to create >> the whole page just to note their small change (although it would >> obviously be awesome if they did). >> >> Cheers, >> John >> >>> sage >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
