On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:29:07 +0000 "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 12:07:35PM -0800, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > > In preparation to asking FESCo to amend the feature process, I'd like to > > find out if there is going to be an uprising from y'all against the > > idea. > > > > Currently, the feature process does not specifically require release > > notes or documentation, nor provide for FESCo to block a feature because > > of missing or poor feature documentation. We think the feature > > policy[1] should be amended[2] to require this. > > I don't like this idea. While I'm perfectly happy to write release notes > and/or short docs for my features in Fedora 9, the nature of some of the > work I'm doing means that it is hard/impossible to write any meaningful > docs until shortly before release. To have the feature lingering unapproved > in limbo until the docs are written is not helpful. > > By all means revoke features which don't have docs written at time of > release, but making it a requirement for initial approval is going to > discourage submission of features., Or it'll force me to just make up > some random garbage for docs to get past the approval process, and then > re-write them again once the work is actually done. Odd. That's not how I read the proposal, but I agree with what you are saying. Documentation should probably be required before release, but probably not before being approved. There should be a That adds another step in the Feature process to go back and re-review everything to make sure it has docs though. Hrm.. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
