feature process should require release notes/docs

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:29:07 +0000
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange at redhat.com> 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