Re: [RFC v2 for-4.6 0/2] In-tree feature documentation

[Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com>]

On 08/25/2015 04:40 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> An issue which Xen has is an uncertain support statement for features.
> Given the success seen with docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown, and in
> particular keeping it up to date, introduce a similar system for
> features.
>
> Patch 1 introduces a proposed template (and a makefile tweak to include
> the new docs/features subdirectory), while patch 2 is a feature document
> covering the topic of migration.
>
> v2 Adds %Revision and #History table, following feedback from v1.
>
> This is tagged RFC as I expect people to have different views as to what
> is useful to include.  I would particilarly appreciate feedback on the
> template before it starts getting used widely.
>
> Lars: Does this look like a reasonable counterpart to your formal
> support statement document?
>
> Jim: Per your request at the summit for new information, is patch 2
> suitable?

Yes. It provides excellent info, with pointers to dig deeper for those interested.

Your proposal does raise the bar for feature contribution, but I'm not active 
enough in the Xen community to know if folks are supportive of the additional 
overhead. Would new features require a feature doc before committing?

My comment at the summit was more along the lines of a summary of libxl changes 
for external consumers. A libxl interface changelog of sorts, for consumers 
unable to keep up with xen-devel. But I also noted this may be a personal 
problem. You've already mentioned 'git log' :-).

Regards,
Jim