From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Piotr =?utf-8?B?RGHFgmVr?= Subject: Re: updating the documentation Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:22:46 +0200 Message-ID: <20170712192246.GA10000@mailware> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from predictor.org.pl ([185.5.97.54]:60752 "EHLO predictor.org.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752673AbdGLTWt (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:22:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:37:32AM -0700, Patrick Donnelly wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Sage Weil 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. For sure it could fail if a PR changes config_opts.h and doesn't carry any doc update -- lack of docs for config options is probably the most common and most annoying issue among Ceph users. -- Piotr Dałek branch@predictor.org.pl http://blog.predictor.org.pl